◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

It’s hard to view Stalin as any sort of Russian national hero considering the demonstrable idiocy of his apologists’ arguments.

Trying to portray him as such involves descending into a fantasy world in which no country had ever managed to industrialize itself without killing off millions of its most intelligent and productive people or have won a war against a European Great Power without the indispensable strategic wisdom that you could only get from a Georgian dropout who spent his youth robbing banks and sitting in jail with his fellow Bolshevik comrades and sundry ethnic minority activists. A more rabidly Russophobic outlook could scarcely be imagined.

So its pretty sad to see that Russian sentiments towards Stalin generally are (and have been) positive, despite the Kremlin’s half-hearted attempts to disassociate him from the Great Victory cult that is now the primary spiritual glue used to keep Russia together.

That said, it is very valid to ask why said apologetics industry for Stalin developed in Russia from the 2000s in the first place. Was it Kremlin propaganda? Nope. Only people whose only exposure to Russia is through the dregs of Western journalism can seriously believe that. Putin’s own statements on Stalin have been consistently ambivalent, and even the infamous “Stalinist” textbook episode of 2009 – just one minor textbook of many dozens, which the Western media portrayed as a state-backed “rehabilitation” of Stalin – contained sentences such as “ruthless exploitation of the population.”

So if this wasn’t due to a Kremlin propaganda campaign, then why the enduring Stalinophilia? My view is that it was Russian society’s response to the wholesale “blackwashing” of Stalin that took place in the 1990s with rhetoric about “muh 72 million victims of Communism” lifted from Cold War scholars in the West who had to speculate in the absence of archival access.

Such extreme positions were uncritically pushed by the Westernizing ideologues who constitute Russian liberalism once society opened up in the late 1980s and 1990s, to the extent that the phenomenon even got its own ironic meme (“billions shot dead personally by Stalin”). Considering some of the truly crazy stuff that was floating about – there were entirely serious articles in the liberal press arguing that Nazi conquest could have been better for Russia than Stalin – this was not too surprising in hindsight.

One would think that given Stalin’s actual record, which was sordid enough, you would not need to “blackwash” him any further, but ideologues will be ideologues, so what happened happened, and next thing you know many people started suspecting that given the false facts and figures being pushed about Stalin – demonstrated so by the newly accessible archival evidence itself – then maybe they were lying about everything else as well, and well maybe Stalin was actually the good guy after all, maligned by his bitter and limp-wristed successors who “sold out” the Glorious Leader.

And thus a huge strand of the Russian “patriotic” opposition to the liberal neocon hegemony of the 1990s, which had decidedly triumphed by the end of Putin’s first term, had in the process also become infested with Stalinophilia – even though it is not really compatible with Russian patriotism, let alone Russian nationalism (which the Communists, including Stalin, ruthlessly persecuted). The tendency of Stalin’s popularity to wax and wane in sync with the state of Russia’s relations with the West – lower when they are good, and higher when they are bad – strongly suggests that the debate over Stalin in Russia has nothing to do with real history. Instead, it is merely one of several tribal identifiers in politics, much like denial of global warming is a tenet of the Red Tribe and blank slatism is a tenet of the Blue Tribe, both of which have everything to do with American-specific politics and nothing to do with science. In Russia’s case, this Stalinist identifier – like the broader patriotic Great Patriotic War ideology onto which it has affixed itself – gets deflated and boosted whenever Russia veers between globalist integrationism and siege mentality, respectively.

This is not critical in the short term. To be sure, it generates negative headlines in the West, but that’s irrelevant because even if Russia were to uneqivocally start condemning Stalin, Western editors would just find something else to latch onto so long as Russia remains a sovereign country. In the longer term, however, these contradictions will have to be resolved.

Almost always, A. Karlin, your posts strike me as exactly what I was thinking and could have written myself, but would have been better left written by you. Not this time, though, and your thought process seems more detached from mine.

This is like what Scott Adams says on rating good/bad leaders: what is your alternative?

I think of Stalin as a mostly good leader as the alternative I see is China: an even higher-IQ country with a revolution against a monarchy in the 1910s with just as good a capacity for industrialization hampered by poor leadership, a near-absence of industrialization before the inevitable foreign invasion, and disunity. I’m not sure exactly what alternative you see to Stalin, A. Karlin. Maybe I’m missing something.

Sure, Stalin was nowhere near Russia’s ideal option. But I could easily see Russia losing the war without him, or becoming just as depression-wreaked as any southern European country with a much slower recovery. Obviously, I don’t deny the famine and mass executions were completely unnecessary, as well as that lots of aspects of the early war defense were lacking.

I think of Stalin as a mostly good leader as the alternative I see is China: an even higher-IQ country with a revolution against a monarchy in the 1910s with just as good a capacity for industrialization hampered by poor leadership, a near-absence of industrialization before the inevitable foreign invasion, and disunity.

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was far more advanced than contemporary China, and substantially more so even than China in 1949.

I had a longer post on this here: http://akarlin.com/2012/06/the-soviet-economy-charting-failure/

But suffice to say that by that period ~80% of Russian children were or had been in school, so mass literacy was imminent, and though it was beginning from a low base, industrial growth was the highest in Europe and there is good evidence that a rapid industrial takeoff was about to occur.

But I could easily see Russia losing the war without him, or becoming just as depression-wreaked as any southern European country with a much slower recovery.

Making the (implausible) assumption that the international situation would have panned out as it did without the Russian Revolution, Stalin's transfer of some heavy industries to the Urals and Siberia would have probably been more than entirely counteracted by an extra decades' worth of economic growth (the USSR only recovered the industrial production levels of the last years of Tsarist Russia in the late 1920s).

Obviously, I don’t deny the famine and mass executions were completely unnecessary

That presumes that Holodomor was artificially created. It wasn't

As for the the "mass executions" - care to elaborate here? There was such a thing like "execution/death penalty" and some crimes were punishable with said execution in the USSR. Are you saying they were not really a crimes? Or that you are against the death penalty?

So if this wasn’t due to a Kremlin propaganda campaign, then why the enduring Stalinophilia? My view is that it was Russian society’s response to the wholesale “blackwashing” of Stalin that took place in the 1990s with rhetoric about “muh 72 million victims of Communism” lifted from Cold War scholars in the West who had to speculate in the absence of archival access.

Well, given the middling quality of that explanation, I feel I can add a few words:

It’s about that object of Daniel Dennett’s abhorrence:

A good view *(“Stalin was good”), argued badly ** (“had to kill millions”).

Almost always, A. Karlin, your posts strike me as exactly what I was thinking and could have written myself, but would have been better left written by you. Not this time, though, and your thought process seems more detached from mine.

This is like what Scott Adams says on rating good/bad leaders: what is your alternative?

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22328#fromrss

I think of Stalin as a mostly good leader as the alternative I see is China: an even higher-IQ country with a revolution against a monarchy in the 1910s with just as good a capacity for industrialization hampered by poor leadership, a near-absence of industrialization before the inevitable foreign invasion, and disunity. I'm not sure exactly what alternative you see to Stalin, A. Karlin. Maybe I'm missing something.

Sure, Stalin was nowhere near Russia's ideal option. But I could easily see Russia losing the war without him, or becoming just as depression-wreaked as any southern European country with a much slower recovery. Obviously, I don't deny the famine and mass executions were completely unnecessary, as well as that lots of aspects of the early war defense were lacking.

I think of Stalin as a mostly good leader as the alternative I see is China: an even higher-IQ country with a revolution against a monarchy in the 1910s with just as good a capacity for industrialization hampered by poor leadership, a near-absence of industrialization before the inevitable foreign invasion, and disunity.

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was far more advanced than contemporary China, and substantially more so even than China in 1949.

But suffice to say that by that period ~80% of Russian children were or had been in school, so mass literacy was imminent, and though it was beginning from a low base, industrial growth was the highest in Europe and there is good evidence that a rapid industrial takeoff was about to occur.

But I could easily see Russia losing the war without him, or becoming just as depression-wreaked as any southern European country with a much slower recovery.

Making the (implausible) assumption that the international situation would have panned out as it did without the Russian Revolution, Stalin’s transfer of some heavy industries to the Urals and Siberia would have probably been more than entirely counteracted by an extra decades’ worth of economic growth (the USSR only recovered the industrial production levels of the last years of Tsarist Russia in the late 1920s).

Stalin’s transfer of some heavy industries to the Urals and Siberia would have probably been more than entirely counteracted by an extra decades’ worth of economic growth (the USSR only recovered the industrial production levels of the last years of Tsarist Russia in the late 1920s)

I think you're talking about the scenario where the revolution never occured. Sure, in that case Russia would have been quite strong by 1941. Its relative importance in the world would have improved from 1917 due to a high birth rate and more time to catch up to the West.

One can also imagine a scenario where the revolution occurred, but no Stalin ever came along. Compare that to the 1990s ending in Russia with Putin but continuing to this day in the Ukraine. In this second scenario the USSR would have lost WWII because Stalin was much more interested in building an industry than the Old Bolsheviks were.

Colonel General Dimitri Volkogonov, the former Director of the Institute of Military History, argues that the father of Stalinism was Leninism, specifically, Lenin. He had unlimited accesss to hidden Politburo records. He also did a biography of Stalin which apparently caused him to lose his position as Director. Good reading, rigorously documented and referenced.

How cold have a person who loved Russians more than they loved themselves kill so many of them? It’s a big mystery. Stalin was a big contradiction. He adopted himself into the Russian nation, spoke the language with a Georgian accent for the rest of his life, sent at least hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the gulags, and yet he was a bigger Russian than most of them.

When Hitler rejected his feelers about possible truce after the initial onslaught, opting instead for war of extermination against the “subhumans”, Stalin apparently took great offense at this, and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

His love for the Russians was on display again at the victory parade at the end of WW2 when the Red Army units were throwing captured Nazi flags and banners at his feet. For the great victory apparently he thanked only the “Great Russians”, leaving out the rest of the nationalities making up almost half of the Soviet Union.

I don’t think that the ambiguity about Stalin among ordinary Russians will be resolved any time soon. He did some horrible things to them, but maybe that though love was necessary and in the final analysis, he did won a war which made a difference between survival and annihilation.

and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

And yet even after the war Russians continued to be exterminated in a famine (while the USSR sent grain to East Germany!!) at a relative rate comparable to that incurred by the Germans during their expulsion from Eastern Europe.

Ultimately I don't see anything particularly contradictory in any of the above. Indeed Stalin made some rhetorical concessions towards Russians (as he did to other nationalities), especially after the war. By that period he had come to see himself as a Tsar of sorts, holding Ivan IV (Grozny) in particularly high regard. But I would sooner compare it to the way one grows attached to one's country of choice when playing as its eternal leader in Civilization or Europa Universalis. :)

How cold have a person who loved Russians more than they loved themselves kill so many of them? It’s a big mystery. Stalin was a big contradiction. He adopted himself into the Russian nation, spoke the language with a Georgian accent for the rest of his life, sent at least hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the gulags, and yet he was a bigger Russian than most of them.

What a purple prose nonsense! Have you ever heard about the "big numbers" theory? Stalin didn't single out Russians to be "sent to their deaths" because he hated them. Get real.

Oh, and the word is either "prison" or "labor-correction camp". Or even "special settlment". People were sent here not "to their death" but due to the court decisions. The vast majority of them came back alive.

GULag is the Chief Directorate of (Prison) Camps - an acronym without plural.

We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000But note that there is not a single verifiable excavated mass grave that can actually be SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka) even though Jews claim to know exactly where these allegedly enormous mass graves are.

The massive numbers of so called "eyewitne$$es" are living testimony to fraudulence of the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

How cold have a person who loved Russians more than they loved themselves kill so many of them? It’s a big mystery. Stalin was a big contradiction. He adopted himself into the Russian nation, spoke the language with a Georgian accent for the rest of his life, sent at least hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the gulags, and yet he was a bigger Russian than most of them.

When Hitler rejected his feelers about possible truce after the initial onslaught, opting instead for war of extermination against the “subhumans”, Stalin apparently took great offense at this, and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

His love for the Russians was on display again at the victory parade at the end of WW2 when the Red Army units were throwing captured Nazi flags and banners at his feet. For the great victory apparently he thanked only the “Great Russians”, leaving out the rest of the nationalities making up almost half of the Soviet Union.

I don’t think that the ambiguity about Stalin among ordinary Russians will be resolved any time soon. He did some horrible things to them, but maybe that though love was necessary and in the final analysis, he did won a war which made a difference between survival and annihilation.

and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

And yet even after the war Russians continued to be exterminated in a famine (while the USSR sent grain to East Germany!!) at a relative rate comparable to that incurred by the Germans during their expulsion from Eastern Europe.

Ultimately I don’t see anything particularly contradictory in any of the above. Indeed Stalin made some rhetorical concessions towards Russians (as he did to other nationalities), especially after the war. By that period he had come to see himself as a Tsar of sorts, holding Ivan IV (Grozny) in particularly high regard. But I would sooner compare it to the way one grows attached to one’s country of choice when playing as its eternal leader in Civilization or Europa Universalis.

[And yet even after the war Russians continued to be exterminated in a famine (while the USSR sent grain to East Germany!!) at a relative rate comparable to that incurred by the Germans during their expulsion from Eastern Europe.]

A very dubious assertion. The wikipedia article you link to is thin gruel indeed.

1) Stalin began reversing the korenizatsiya policies as early as 1930, first in Donbass, and then expanded this reversal to the whole country. By mid 1930s Russian language was compulsory throughout the USSR.

2) The entire Soviet culture had a clear Russian slant by 1930s. Traditional Russian opera was back in the Bolshoi with a vengeance. A memorable anecdote illustrated the spirit of the times as well as Stalin's mindset: Party's cultural minion Bolshakov suggested that the traditional ending to "Ivan Susanin" that sings about the tsar be changed and to that Stalin quipped:"I have a better idea. How about we keep the ending and change Bolshakov?". The fledgling movie industry included besides "Battleship Potemkin" masterpieces such as "Alexander Nevsky" and "Ivan Grozny". The former is particularly Russia-centric featuring heavy Russian Orthodox symbolism and Russian Orthodox Church being presented in a very positive light. There was also a much lesser known biopic about hetman Khmelnitsky from 1940 which was also had a Russian slant to it(or better, told the truth about Khmelnitsky).

3) Stalin began easing the repressions upon the Russian Orthodox Church in the inter-war period, making it quasi-official state religion by the end of the war. At the time of Stalin's death the Church was almost at a pre-revolutionary level when it came to number of parishes and churches.

4) Other aspects of Russian tradition began to re-appear during Stalin. Cossacks ceased to be the bogey-man and were in fact all but officially rehabilitated by the 1930s. The last Party congress before the war saw scenes of Cossacks in traditional garb talk quite amicably to Stalin, much to the chagrin of some non-purged old Bolsheviks.

5) You can tell a lot by the country's national anthem. The Internationale was replaced in 1944 with an anthem that in it's first two verses sang about the unbreakable union forged by "velikaya Rus"."Rus" is a far greater concept then "Russia", it denotes a cultural and a spritual realm not just a geopolitical one.

There is also more to show that Stalin paid far more then lip-service to Russia and Russians but these are just the top of my head.

I’m not Russian and probably not very insightful about its history, but
as I see it, Stalin did certainly make a lot of terrible decisions, which have proven very costly for the Russian people, but in the end he managed to be a corrective for the early Bolshevisks around Lenin and Trotsky, who I think were worse, being a) worse in ideology, b) very capable of violence and c) were known to have casually sold the country down the river (Brest-Litovsk).

So if we compare him against potential alternatives, the people who could have seized power in his place after Lenin’s death, my feeling is he was the “lesser evil” and that’s to his credit. But perhaps someone can show me what would have been a better trajectory for Russia at this juncture (who, how, realistically?)

So if we compare him against potential alternatives, the people who could have seized power in his place after Lenin’s death, my feeling is he was the “lesser evil” and that’s to his credit. But perhaps someone can show me what would have been a better trajectory for Russia at this juncture (who, how, realistically?)

Hard to say, but I think a fair argument could be that things might have gone better if the Bukharin-Rykov bloc that won out in the factional struggles of the 1920s.

* They were the strongest supporters of the NEP, which had far better long-term prospects than central planning.
* Bukharin opposed (and privately condemned) collectivization.
* Bukharin was personally popular within the Communist Party (and not in a creepy culty way like with Lenin and Stalin)
* Highly intellectual, relatively moderate, unlikely to devolve into totalitarian dictatorship.
* Had connections with European Social Democratic parties. This is very alt history-like, but this might have made (1) the German SPD less utterly allergic to the KPD which would have greatly complicated the Nazis' rise to power, and (2) probably made the Nazis less popular to boot as the perception of the Soviet threat would not have been as dire.
* Was not an ideologue committed to world revolution and in fact was the guy who came up with the "socialism in one country" concept once the prospects of world revolution faded away.
* As a popular moderate without dictatorial and paranoiac tendencies, unlikely to mass purge the Red Army (and replace many of them with uneducated yesmen).
* The peasants would not have been so unhappy with the regime as under Stalin, and thus in the event of a war with the Third Reich, Soviet soldiers would have likely been less ready to surrender en masse as they did in summer 1941.
* The Russia historians (and prominent Russophile) Stephen Cohen is of the opinion Bukharin would have been much better than Stalin.
* Incidentally, Bukharin and Rykov were the only ethnic Russians amongst Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Stalin. One important if not very PC and vastly underexplored factor is to what extent the various ethnic minorities in the early Soviet state were really acting on petty grievances against Russians (even subconsciously) as opposed to the interests of the Soviet state or even the Marxist project as such.

Disadvantages:

* Economic development would have been less industry-heavy (if lopsidedly so) during the 1930s. But, lopsided or not, it is a fact that industrial power is what matters most in a Great Power war.

Although the disadvantage is a very significant one, I think the advantages easily outweight them however.

well, Stalin was not free in choosing what to do. He became a leader of the revolutionary nation which already had certain ideology imposed on her. He acted in the framework of that ideology and had to achieve the goals that the ideology set up for the nation, i.e. modernization, industrialization, cultural revolution, strenghtening the defense capability. The tasks and the goals were of tremendouse scale. It took a lot of violence to unite the nation and to suppress dissent, obstructionism and sabotage among the ideological rivals and predominantly rural, politically uneducated population. His personal features did influensed the way how he acted, but the "what to do" came from the nature of the revolution, the accepted ideology, the state of the nation and the readiness of the population to accept the changes.

and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

And yet even after the war Russians continued to be exterminated in a famine (while the USSR sent grain to East Germany!!) at a relative rate comparable to that incurred by the Germans during their expulsion from Eastern Europe.

Ultimately I don't see anything particularly contradictory in any of the above. Indeed Stalin made some rhetorical concessions towards Russians (as he did to other nationalities), especially after the war. By that period he had come to see himself as a Tsar of sorts, holding Ivan IV (Grozny) in particularly high regard. But I would sooner compare it to the way one grows attached to one's country of choice when playing as its eternal leader in Civilization or Europa Universalis. :)

[And yet even after the war Russians continued to be exterminated in a famine (while the USSR sent grain to East Germany!!) at a relative rate comparable to that incurred by the Germans during their expulsion from Eastern Europe.]

A very dubious assertion. The wikipedia article you link to is thin gruel indeed.

He was certainly preferable to Lenin or Trotsky. Not perfect, but he allowed Russian identity to gradually reassert itself while removing the most rabid internationalists. His foreign policy was pretty brilliant IMO.

Utopianism, which is what communism and all the other ‘isms’ throughout history have been, inevitably drift along the same lines. The original thinkers inspire a mass of epigones who proceed to vulgarize and simplify it to mere formula and ultimately to just cant. Various groups of people and individuals come to be seen as obstinate obstacles to achieving this coming paradise-on-earth and thus need to be removed to clear the path. Thus pressure and ultimately open violence are used against these unrepentant types who are considered to be deserving of anything that happens to them. Factions appear and the utopians ultimately devour each other.
Stalin knew war was coming and had to step up industrialization to a frantic pace. This was never a pretty picture wherever it took place, as a look at what working conditions were like during industrialization in the UK and US in their factories and mines, the whitewashed history of labor violence in the US, Britain’s Enclosure Acts driving people off the land and the general history of the state using laws and force to keep the peons in line. Stalin felt they had to achieve in ten years what the others had accomplished in fifty. This may have saved the state when the inevitable war broke out.
History often provides a hazy picture with time. Some of our founding fathers were slave owners yet they’re still well regarded for the good things they bequeathed us and the bad things are minimized. It’s hard to picture buying and owning Africans like cattle and forcing them to work for you, even to the extent of owning hundreds of them, yet they did it. Short-sightedly they though this could last forever and planted seeds of poison in the ground that last to this day. Had their War of Independence failed and America stayed under Britain then possibly we’d be like Canada, hardly a bad thing. Much of history is just mythology and people want to believe in Santa Claus.

I think of Stalin as a mostly good leader as the alternative I see is China: an even higher-IQ country with a revolution against a monarchy in the 1910s with just as good a capacity for industrialization hampered by poor leadership, a near-absence of industrialization before the inevitable foreign invasion, and disunity.

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was far more advanced than contemporary China, and substantially more so even than China in 1949.

I had a longer post on this here: http://akarlin.com/2012/06/the-soviet-economy-charting-failure/

But suffice to say that by that period ~80% of Russian children were or had been in school, so mass literacy was imminent, and though it was beginning from a low base, industrial growth was the highest in Europe and there is good evidence that a rapid industrial takeoff was about to occur.

But I could easily see Russia losing the war without him, or becoming just as depression-wreaked as any southern European country with a much slower recovery.

Making the (implausible) assumption that the international situation would have panned out as it did without the Russian Revolution, Stalin's transfer of some heavy industries to the Urals and Siberia would have probably been more than entirely counteracted by an extra decades' worth of economic growth (the USSR only recovered the industrial production levels of the last years of Tsarist Russia in the late 1920s).

Stalin’s transfer of some heavy industries to the Urals and Siberia would have probably been more than entirely counteracted by an extra decades’ worth of economic growth (the USSR only recovered the industrial production levels of the last years of Tsarist Russia in the late 1920s)

I think you’re talking about the scenario where the revolution never occured. Sure, in that case Russia would have been quite strong by 1941. Its relative importance in the world would have improved from 1917 due to a high birth rate and more time to catch up to the West.

One can also imagine a scenario where the revolution occurred, but no Stalin ever came along. Compare that to the 1990s ending in Russia with Putin but continuing to this day in the Ukraine. In this second scenario the USSR would have lost WWII because Stalin was much more interested in building an industry than the Old Bolsheviks were.

I also agree that if the first world war, revolution, and civil war had never occurred, Russia may well have been in a very strong position in 1940 due to not having any demographic or economic catastrophe.

What kept China so chaotic in the aftermath of the 1911 revolution, I wonder?

Almost always, A. Karlin, your posts strike me as exactly what I was thinking and could have written myself, but would have been better left written by you. Not this time, though, and your thought process seems more detached from mine.

This is like what Scott Adams says on rating good/bad leaders: what is your alternative?

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22328#fromrss

I think of Stalin as a mostly good leader as the alternative I see is China: an even higher-IQ country with a revolution against a monarchy in the 1910s with just as good a capacity for industrialization hampered by poor leadership, a near-absence of industrialization before the inevitable foreign invasion, and disunity. I'm not sure exactly what alternative you see to Stalin, A. Karlin. Maybe I'm missing something.

Sure, Stalin was nowhere near Russia's ideal option. But I could easily see Russia losing the war without him, or becoming just as depression-wreaked as any southern European country with a much slower recovery. Obviously, I don't deny the famine and mass executions were completely unnecessary, as well as that lots of aspects of the early war defense were lacking.

Stalin’s transfer of some heavy industries to the Urals and Siberia would have probably been more than entirely counteracted by an extra decades’ worth of economic growth (the USSR only recovered the industrial production levels of the last years of Tsarist Russia in the late 1920s)

I think you're talking about the scenario where the revolution never occured. Sure, in that case Russia would have been quite strong by 1941. Its relative importance in the world would have improved from 1917 due to a high birth rate and more time to catch up to the West.

One can also imagine a scenario where the revolution occurred, but no Stalin ever came along. Compare that to the 1990s ending in Russia with Putin but continuing to this day in the Ukraine. In this second scenario the USSR would have lost WWII because Stalin was much more interested in building an industry than the Old Bolsheviks were.

I also agree that if the first world war, revolution, and civil war had never occurred, Russia may well have been in a very strong position in 1940 due to not having any demographic or economic catastrophe.

What kept China so chaotic in the aftermath of the 1911 revolution, I wonder?

Would be interesting to see this broken down by age…could the rise in “indifferent” be connected to younger people simply not caring very much about the Stalin era anymore? I often wonder how remote the age of the world wars must seem to people in their early or mid-20s.

Almost always, A. Karlin, your posts strike me as exactly what I was thinking and could have written myself, but would have been better left written by you. Not this time, though, and your thought process seems more detached from mine.

This is like what Scott Adams says on rating good/bad leaders: what is your alternative?

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22328#fromrss

I think of Stalin as a mostly good leader as the alternative I see is China: an even higher-IQ country with a revolution against a monarchy in the 1910s with just as good a capacity for industrialization hampered by poor leadership, a near-absence of industrialization before the inevitable foreign invasion, and disunity. I'm not sure exactly what alternative you see to Stalin, A. Karlin. Maybe I'm missing something.

Sure, Stalin was nowhere near Russia's ideal option. But I could easily see Russia losing the war without him, or becoming just as depression-wreaked as any southern European country with a much slower recovery. Obviously, I don't deny the famine and mass executions were completely unnecessary, as well as that lots of aspects of the early war defense were lacking.

Obviously, I don’t deny the famine and mass executions were completely unnecessary

That presumes that Holodomor was artificially created. It wasn’t

As for the the “mass executions” – care to elaborate here? There was such a thing like “execution/death penalty” and some crimes were punishable with said execution in the USSR. Are you saying they were not really a crimes? Or that you are against the death penalty?

I think the previous poster is talking about acts that were not really crimes, yes. Also innocents who were executed unjustly, the condemned denied due process and a fair trial, and those who were outright murdered. All of which happen to some degree in every country, but moreso in Stalinist Russia. Read Robert Conquest on The Great Terror.

This is stupid beyond words. The evidence is everywhere that Stalin created the Holomodor. Grain was seized from the farmers and they were not allowed to keep even enough to feed themselves. The party combed Ukraine and executed anyone trying to withhold grain.

Trying to portray him as such involves descending into a fantasy world in which no country had ever managed to industrialize itself without killing off millions of its most intelligent and productive people or have won a war against a European Great Power without the indispensable strategic wisdom that you could only get from a Georgian dropout who spent his youth robbing banks and sitting in jail with his fellow Bolshevik comrades and sundry ethnic minority activists. A more rabidly Russophobic outlook could scarcely be imagined.

AK, you are ignoring the fact that de-Stalinization is 60 years old. It began by the elites and was continued by the (self-proclaimed new) elites.

It failed.

You are using the word “tribal”. Uhm, care to elaborate here? I’m pretty sure there is no “Russian tribe”. There is Russian people though. And for more than 60 years, despite all the pressure from all angles it has been viewing Stalin in mostly positive light. This is bad… how?

You are saying that he screwed up prior to the War. That he “killed off millions of most intelligent and productive people”. That’s whom? Besides, instead of “billions of executed personally by Stalin” you go with “millions” instead as if it would be closer to the truth. Are you aware of the actual figures? And can you prove that said individuals, executed during Stalin’s rule were innocent?

As for industrialization – sure, find me an example when a country right after the Great War, 2 revolutions, Civil War and Foreign intervention, surrounded by the enemy states, actively working to either destroy or sabotage the “evil regime” (or completely denying its existence, not establishing any diplomatic relations) – plus the inner divisions within the government and ruling, find me such a country that have done better than USSR under Stalin. In about a decade.

Better yet – repeat all these positive stuff achieved under Stalin, but without all the bloodshed, in present day. I guarantee you – people will forget about Stalin (or, at least, tone down their support for him) and start hailing those supermen as true heroes of Russian people.

I also don’t understand you stance on Russian nationalism in Stalin’s context. Most hardcore Russian nationalists were against Stalin, true – they were collaborating with the Nazis. White émigrés and assorted “intelligent and productive people“. Should I weep for them, victims of Stalin’s terror?

And speaking about Russian nationalism and modern day Russia – what about it? Does Russia need Russkiy nationalism? If does, then what about Chechen nationalism? Or, for that matter, the Ukrainian nationalism? Should we allow every single ethnicity in Russia to have their own unchecked ego-striking national movement? Or should we proclaim one ethnicity’s nationalism as the TrueЪ One and suppress all others?

That he “killed off millions of most intelligent and productive people”. That’s whom? Besides, instead of “billions of executed personally by Stalin” you go with “millions” instead as if it would be closer to the truth. Are you aware of the actual figures? And can you prove that said individuals, executed during Stalin’s rule were innocent?

I am not going to waste my time regurgitating commonly known and easily accessible data based on the regime's own archives.

Most hardcore Russian nationalists were against Stalin, true – they were collaborating with the Nazis. White émigrés and assorted “intelligent and productive people“.

They were a small minority. Indeed, many Whites put aside their (very understandable) antipathies to the sovok regime and organized aid shipments to the Soviet Union during the war. The most eminent Russian collaborator Andrey Vlasov joined the Reds very early on and was a favorite of the regime until he was captured by the Germans and suddenly, magically awoke to the horror of Stalin's dictatorship.

How cold have a person who loved Russians more than they loved themselves kill so many of them? It’s a big mystery. Stalin was a big contradiction. He adopted himself into the Russian nation, spoke the language with a Georgian accent for the rest of his life, sent at least hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the gulags, and yet he was a bigger Russian than most of them.

When Hitler rejected his feelers about possible truce after the initial onslaught, opting instead for war of extermination against the “subhumans”, Stalin apparently took great offense at this, and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

His love for the Russians was on display again at the victory parade at the end of WW2 when the Red Army units were throwing captured Nazi flags and banners at his feet. For the great victory apparently he thanked only the “Great Russians”, leaving out the rest of the nationalities making up almost half of the Soviet Union.

I don’t think that the ambiguity about Stalin among ordinary Russians will be resolved any time soon. He did some horrible things to them, but maybe that though love was necessary and in the final analysis, he did won a war which made a difference between survival and annihilation.

How cold have a person who loved Russians more than they loved themselves kill so many of them? It’s a big mystery. Stalin was a big contradiction. He adopted himself into the Russian nation, spoke the language with a Georgian accent for the rest of his life, sent at least hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the gulags, and yet he was a bigger Russian than most of them.

What a purple prose nonsense! Have you ever heard about the “big numbers” theory? Stalin didn’t single out Russians to be “sent to their deaths” because he hated them. Get real.

Oh, and the word is either “prison” or “labor-correction camp”. Or even “special settlment”. People were sent here not “to their death” but due to the court decisions. The vast majority of them came back alive.

GULag is the Chief Directorate of (Prison) Camps – an acronym without plural.

I'm not Russian and probably not very insightful about its history, butas I see it, Stalin did certainly make a lot of terrible decisions, which have proven very costly for the Russian people, but in the end he managed to be a corrective for the early Bolshevisks around Lenin and Trotsky, who I think were worse, being a) worse in ideology, b) very capable of violence and c) were known to have casually sold the country down the river (Brest-Litovsk).

So if we compare him against potential alternatives, the people who could have seized power in his place after Lenin's death, my feeling is he was the "lesser evil" and that's to his credit. But perhaps someone can show me what would have been a better trajectory for Russia at this juncture (who, how, realistically?)

So if we compare him against potential alternatives, the people who could have seized power in his place after Lenin’s death, my feeling is he was the “lesser evil” and that’s to his credit. But perhaps someone can show me what would have been a better trajectory for Russia at this juncture (who, how, realistically?)

Hard to say, but I think a fair argument could be that things might have gone better if the Bukharin-Rykov bloc that won out in the factional struggles of the 1920s.

* They were the strongest supporters of the NEP, which had far better long-term prospects than central planning.
* Bukharin opposed (and privately condemned) collectivization.
* Bukharin was personally popular within the Communist Party (and not in a creepy culty way like with Lenin and Stalin)
* Highly intellectual, relatively moderate, unlikely to devolve into totalitarian dictatorship.
* Had connections with European Social Democratic parties. This is very alt history-like, but this might have made (1) the German SPD less utterly allergic to the KPD which would have greatly complicated the Nazis’ rise to power, and (2) probably made the Nazis less popular to boot as the perception of the Soviet threat would not have been as dire.
* Was not an ideologue committed to world revolution and in fact was the guy who came up with the “socialism in one country” concept once the prospects of world revolution faded away.
* As a popular moderate without dictatorial and paranoiac tendencies, unlikely to mass purge the Red Army (and replace many of them with uneducated yesmen).
* The peasants would not have been so unhappy with the regime as under Stalin, and thus in the event of a war with the Third Reich, Soviet soldiers would have likely been less ready to surrender en masse as they did in summer 1941.
* The Russia historians (and prominent Russophile) Stephen Cohen is of the opinion Bukharin would have been much better than Stalin.
* Incidentally, Bukharin and Rykov were the only ethnic Russians amongst Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Stalin. One important if not very PC and vastly underexplored factor is to what extent the various ethnic minorities in the early Soviet state were really acting on petty grievances against Russians (even subconsciously) as opposed to the interests of the Soviet state or even the Marxist project as such.

Disadvantages:

* Economic development would have been less industry-heavy (if lopsidedly so) during the 1930s. But, lopsided or not, it is a fact that industrial power is what matters most in a Great Power war.

Although the disadvantage is a very significant one, I think the advantages easily outweight them however.

Soviet soldiers were not willing to surrender easily even in the early weeks of Barbarossa. German memoirs are clear on this.
Bukharin was a weakling and it's hard to see a plausible path to power for him.

You alts and semi-alts seem to have a great-man theory of history. You really think that picking the individual leader determines historical consequences. A result is that you project a particular comrade's policies into the future, where most of the major figures - Stalin and Bukharin most of all - were erratic. Bukharin had advocated extending the proletarian revolution internationally by military means, accepting the risk of annihilation by the Germans and opposing Brest. This debate tied up the Bolshevik Central Committee of months and led to the ban on factions so propitious to Stalin. Bukharin's "socialism is one country" was a complete about face.

Similarly, Stalin had been allied with Stalin in favoring extension of the NEP, against Trotsky who called for rapid industrialization. In 1928, Stalin did an about face, dramatically outflanking Trotsky on the pace of industrial growth and of collectivization.

Trying to portray him as such involves descending into a fantasy world in which no country had ever managed to industrialize itself without killing off millions of its most intelligent and productive people or have won a war against a European Great Power without the indispensable strategic wisdom that you could only get from a Georgian dropout who spent his youth robbing banks and sitting in jail with his fellow Bolshevik comrades and sundry ethnic minority activists. A more rabidly Russophobic outlook could scarcely be imagined.

AK, you are ignoring the fact that de-Stalinization is 60 years old. It began by the elites and was continued by the (self-proclaimed new) elites.

It failed.

You are using the word "tribal". Uhm, care to elaborate here? I'm pretty sure there is no "Russian tribe". There is Russian people though. And for more than 60 years, despite all the pressure from all angles it has been viewing Stalin in mostly positive light. This is bad... how?

You are saying that he screwed up prior to the War. That he "killed off millions of most intelligent and productive people". That's whom? Besides, instead of "billions of executed personally by Stalin" you go with "millions" instead as if it would be closer to the truth. Are you aware of the actual figures? And can you prove that said individuals, executed during Stalin's rule were innocent?

As for industrialization - sure, find me an example when a country right after the Great War, 2 revolutions, Civil War and Foreign intervention, surrounded by the enemy states, actively working to either destroy or sabotage the "evil regime" (or completely denying its existence, not establishing any diplomatic relations) - plus the inner divisions within the government and ruling, find me such a country that have done better than USSR under Stalin. In about a decade.

Better yet - repeat all these positive stuff achieved under Stalin, but without all the bloodshed, in present day. I guarantee you - people will forget about Stalin (or, at least, tone down their support for him) and start hailing those supermen as true heroes of Russian people.

I also don't understand you stance on Russian nationalism in Stalin's context. Most hardcore Russian nationalists were against Stalin, true - they were collaborating with the Nazis. White émigrés and assorted "intelligent and productive people". Should I weep for them, victims of Stalin's terror?

And speaking about Russian nationalism and modern day Russia - what about it? Does Russia need Russkiy nationalism? If does, then what about Chechen nationalism? Or, for that matter, the Ukrainian nationalism? Should we allow every single ethnicity in Russia to have their own unchecked ego-striking national movement? Or should we proclaim one ethnicity's nationalism as the TrueЪ One and suppress all others?

That he “killed off millions of most intelligent and productive people”. That’s whom? Besides, instead of “billions of executed personally by Stalin” you go with “millions” instead as if it would be closer to the truth. Are you aware of the actual figures? And can you prove that said individuals, executed during Stalin’s rule were innocent?

I am not going to waste my time regurgitating commonly known and easily accessible data based on the regime’s own archives.

Most hardcore Russian nationalists were against Stalin, true – they were collaborating with the Nazis. White émigrés and assorted “intelligent and productive people“.

They were a small minority. Indeed, many Whites put aside their (very understandable) antipathies to the sovok regime and organized aid shipments to the Soviet Union during the war. The most eminent Russian collaborator Andrey Vlasov joined the Reds very early on and was a favorite of the regime until he was captured by the Germans and suddenly, magically awoke to the horror of Stalin’s dictatorship.

I am not going to waste my time regurgitating commonly known and easily accessible data based on the regime’s own archives.

Geem I didn't know that there's been written somewhere that "we must eliminate only most intelligent and productive people". In what archives did you unearthed that knowledge, AK? I want to expand my horizons.

They were a small minority. Indeed, many Whites put aside their (very understandable) antipathies to the sovok regime and organized aid shipments to the Soviet Union during the war. The most eminent Russian collaborator Andrey Vlasov joined the Reds very early on and was a favorite of the regime until he was captured by the Germans and suddenly, magically awoke to the horror of Stalin’s dictatorship.

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was far more advanced than contemporary China, and substantially more so even than China in 1949.

But suffice to say that by that period ~80% of Russian children were or had been in school, so mass literacy was imminent, and though it was beginning from a low base, industrial growth was the highest in Europe and there is good evidence that a rapid industrial takeoff was about to occur.

Ah, yes! The glorious Russia That We Have Lost.

“And Shubert’s waltzes,
And crunch of French bread” (c)

Or we can go full reta… eh, I mean Tal’kov.

Or we can get real and admit that before the godless Juden-Bolsheviks trampled the Holy Rus with their dirty feet, the situation in early XX c. Russian Empire was anything but rosy.

- Percentage of the literate population – 27% (1914). Some context – at least 85% of Russian Empire’s population were peasants. The literacy among them was 22%.
- As for the going to school – again, some context. Those who went beyond 3-year “церковно-приходская” school constituted only 10%.

- You are talking about “big potential” in literacy. Have you heard about the “циркуляр о кухаркиных детях” which prohibited University education for everyone except the children of nobles and chinovniki? That’s, what – less than 5% of all population?

- Those who are crying about “Stalin sending Russians to gulags” ™. Surprise-surprise – Czarist government also sent people to prison and working camps, or to in the middle of nowhere. Guess what – lots of those folks were Russians! Like, you know, the chief clientele of “Stolypin’s traincars”.

- And as for Russian Empire’s economy – how thanks to the Holy Invisible Hand of the Market ™ and without Bloody Bolsheviks everything would be fine and dandy – c’mon! In 1913 Russian Empire’s share in world economy was 4-5%.

- How about the “drunken budget” of 1906-13? In years prior – 1900-06 – the deficit was enormous.

- By 1917 Russian Empire had 70 260 km of railroads. USA in 1890 already had 263 227 km of them. The quality of Czarist time rails was extremely shitty and nearly all of said railroads were single-track.

- By 1917 Russian empire had 1500 tractors, only 11% of which were not imported.

- Adepts of “Russia That We Have Lost” ™ preach that if not the Revolution and bloody Commies then Holy Rus would SUDDENLY start improving and developing by leaps and bounds. Because reasons. But should we, say, compare the level of Russian Empire in the past, long before the War and Revolution, with its fellow Great European powers, the picture would be rather sad. In 1850 Russian GТP was 2/5 of Prussian. In 1913 it’s been only 1/3.

- What was the engine of economic development of Russian empire? Foreign investments and credits, thanks to which the whole country had been sold out to the international capital. Like – for real. Bloody Bolshies were right here. Foreigners totally owned oil industry, metallurgy, shipbuilding (does it remind you of anything ?), and about of 80-90% of banks and various factories. That’s why they were so active during the Civil War and hated commies for “nationalization”. They were deprived of their own “banana republic”! BTW – how were South American banana republics doing in 1920-30? Super-plus-good?

- Foreign debt of Russian Empire would make Poroshenko proud of himself and his wise financial policy (although, he is working hard to correct that). In 1912 Russian Empire owed to France alone 2 bln francs (in gold).

Hey, someone said about “avoiding the demographic catastrophe”? High fertility rate? How about getting real instead:

- Man’s average lifespan – 32.4 y. Woman’s average lifespan – 34.5 y. (1900). That’s in the whole of Empire. In “Russia’s proper” man’s average lifespan was 29 years. In Malorossia – 33 years. Only 40% of citizens of the central Russia survived till 40 y.o.
- For 1000 persons – 47 births and 30 deaths – 2 times worse than in Kaiser’s Germany. Infant mortality of babies younger than 1 y.o. – 27.1% (1910). From 1/3 to 1/4 of them didn’t reach even 5 years.

- In Russian Empire from epidemics per 100 000 died more than 500 people, while in Germany – 100. In 1912 per 100 000 of population there were only 158 available hospital beds, 13 doctors, 17 nurses and 17 midwives. In 1916 cholera had mortality rate of 45%, typhoid – 80%. Anti-vac crowd would be proud of Czarist Russia – virtually no of this fakey nonsense! The mortality rate for smallpox in Russia was 508 per million people, in Germany – 1; from measles – 1062, in Romania – 13. Mortality from scarlet fever, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhoid and cholera Russia was ranked first among the Great Powers – and not only them.

Cursed be Bolshies and their free healthcare! What a country they’ve ruined!

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not an uncritical admirer of Tsarist Russia like you are a Stalinist ideologue. Sorry about that.

- Percentage of the literate population – 27% (1914).

And going up very quickly, reaching 38%-45% (two different estimates) by 1917. By that period 80% of Russian schoolchildren were or had been in school so mass literacy within another generation was inevitable. It is a legitimate criticism of the Tsarist period that they were slow to start on mass literacy campaigns relative to the advanced parts of Europe, but it is wrong to claim that it was not in full swing by the 20th century.

- You are talking about “big potential” in literacy. Have you heard about the “циркуляр о кухаркиных детях” which prohibited University education for everyone except the children of nobles and chinovniki? That’s, what – less than 5% of all population?

But yes the Bolsheviks were more egalitarian doing away with degenerate bourgeois things like entrance exams entirely (with only Stalin putting an end to that particular madness in the early 1930s) while exiling evil bourgeois reactionary eaters like Sikorsky and Zworykin.

Because reasons. But should we, say, compare the level of Russian Empire in the past, long before the War and Revolution, with its fellow Great European powers, the picture would be rather sad. In 1850 Russian GТP was 2/5 of Prussian. In 1913 it’s been only 1/3.

A basic pattern of economic history is that growth in a poor highly agricultural country (as Russia was in 1850) is very hard because it is hard to come up with surpluses to channel into investment. Once you become substantially urbanized and industrialized, however, further growth is increasingly easy to come by (assuming you have the needed level of human capital) until you start converging to the level of the leading countries. Germany around 1850 was at exactly around that Goldilocks zone and thus saw very rapidly growth during the 1860-1914 period as it industrialized rapidly. For Russia that period was only beginning from around 1910.

And what is you antipathies to the “sovok regime”, AK? Family history? Is this a personal matter for you?

This blog is not about my family history and I am certainly not going to engage in conversations about that with a sovok freak such as yourself.

That he “killed off millions of most intelligent and productive people”. That’s whom? Besides, instead of “billions of executed personally by Stalin” you go with “millions” instead as if it would be closer to the truth. Are you aware of the actual figures? And can you prove that said individuals, executed during Stalin’s rule were innocent?

I am not going to waste my time regurgitating commonly known and easily accessible data based on the regime's own archives.

Most hardcore Russian nationalists were against Stalin, true – they were collaborating with the Nazis. White émigrés and assorted “intelligent and productive people“.

They were a small minority. Indeed, many Whites put aside their (very understandable) antipathies to the sovok regime and organized aid shipments to the Soviet Union during the war. The most eminent Russian collaborator Andrey Vlasov joined the Reds very early on and was a favorite of the regime until he was captured by the Germans and suddenly, magically awoke to the horror of Stalin's dictatorship.

I am not going to waste my time regurgitating commonly known and easily accessible data based on the regime’s own archives.

Geem I didn’t know that there’s been written somewhere that “we must eliminate only most intelligent and productive people”. In what archives did you unearthed that knowledge, AK? I want to expand my horizons.

They were a small minority. Indeed, many Whites put aside their (very understandable) antipathies to the sovok regime and organized aid shipments to the Soviet Union during the war. The most eminent Russian collaborator Andrey Vlasov joined the Reds very early on and was a favorite of the regime until he was captured by the Germans and suddenly, magically awoke to the horror of Stalin’s dictatorship.

Geem I didn’t know that there’s been written somewhere that “we must eliminate only most intelligent and productive people”. In what archives did you unearthed that knowledge, AK? I want to expand my horizons.

That's how it worked out. For example - the repression of the kulaks. Kulaks were the hardest working and most enterprising of the peasants, and were able to take advantage of conditions due to Stolypin's reforms and later NEP to live well. For example, in a case I'm personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn't drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation - he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win - the hired help had been incomeless). Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter. He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled. Who was left in the village? The village drunks were untouched, as were others who were simpler, or less hardworking, and thus poorer.

Soviet policies were a sort of reverse natural selection - the survival of the least fit.

This process also occurred in the cities, where Soviets liquidated a lot of engineers and others who had been successful under the old regime. And of course the military.

[BTW – what was the whole amount of the aid sent by this suddenly pro-Soviet Whites?]

In proportion to their limited means and opportunity to supply it. If you read more memoirs and diaries, and fewer propaganda tracts, you would be aware that sympathy for the USSR at war among very anti-Bolshevik Whites was not an imaginary phenomenon.

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was far more advanced than contemporary China, and substantially more so even than China in 1949.

But suffice to say that by that period ~80% of Russian children were or had been in school, so mass literacy was imminent, and though it was beginning from a low base, industrial growth was the highest in Europe and there is good evidence that a rapid industrial takeoff was about to occur.

Ah, yes! The glorious Russia That We Have Lost.

"And Shubert's waltzes,
And crunch of French bread" (c)

Or we can go full reta... eh, I mean Tal'kov.

Or we can get real and admit that before the godless Juden-Bolsheviks trampled the Holy Rus with their dirty feet, the situation in early XX c. Russian Empire was anything but rosy.

- Percentage of the literate population - 27% (1914). Some context - at least 85% of Russian Empire's population were peasants. The literacy among them was 22%.
- As for the going to school - again, some context. Those who went beyond 3-year "церковно-приходская" school constituted only 10%.

- You are talking about "big potential" in literacy. Have you heard about the "циркуляр о кухаркиных детях" which prohibited University education for everyone except the children of nobles and chinovniki? That's, what - less than 5% of all population?

- Those who are crying about "Stalin sending Russians to gulags" (tm). Surprise-surprise - Czarist government also sent people to prison and working camps, or to in the middle of nowhere. Guess what - lots of those folks were Russians! Like, you know, the chief clientele of "Stolypin's traincars".

- And as for Russian Empire's economy - how thanks to the Holy Invisible Hand of the Market (tm) and without Bloody Bolsheviks everything would be fine and dandy - c'mon! In 1913 Russian Empire's share in world economy was 4-5%.

- How about the "drunken budget" of 1906-13? In years prior - 1900-06 - the deficit was enormous.

- By 1917 Russian Empire had 70 260 km of railroads. USA in 1890 already had 263 227 km of them. The quality of Czarist time rails was extremely shitty and nearly all of said railroads were single-track.

- By 1917 Russian empire had 1500 tractors, only 11% of which were not imported.

- Adepts of "Russia That We Have Lost" (tm) preach that if not the Revolution and bloody Commies then Holy Rus would SUDDENLY start improving and developing by leaps and bounds. Because reasons. But should we, say, compare the level of Russian Empire in the past, long before the War and Revolution, with its fellow Great European powers, the picture would be rather sad. In 1850 Russian GТP was 2/5 of Prussian. In 1913 it's been only 1/3.

- What was the engine of economic development of Russian empire? Foreign investments and credits, thanks to which the whole country had been sold out to the international capital. Like - for real. Bloody Bolshies were right here. Foreigners totally owned oil industry, metallurgy, shipbuilding (does it remind you of anything ?), and about of 80-90% of banks and various factories. That's why they were so active during the Civil War and hated commies for "nationalization". They were deprived of their own "banana republic"! BTW - how were South American banana republics doing in 1920-30? Super-plus-good?

- Foreign debt of Russian Empire would make Poroshenko proud of himself and his wise financial policy (although, he is working hard to correct that). In 1912 Russian Empire owed to France alone 2 bln francs (in gold).

Hey, someone said about "avoiding the demographic catastrophe"? High fertility rate? How about getting real instead:

- Man's average lifespan - 32.4 y. Woman's average lifespan - 34.5 y. (1900). That's in the whole of Empire. In "Russia's proper" man's average lifespan was 29 years. In Malorossia - 33 years. Only 40% of citizens of the central Russia survived till 40 y.o.
- For 1000 persons - 47 births and 30 deaths - 2 times worse than in Kaiser's Germany. Infant mortality of babies younger than 1 y.o. - 27.1% (1910). From 1/3 to 1/4 of them didn't reach even 5 years.

- In Russian Empire from epidemics per 100 000 died more than 500 people, while in Germany - 100. In 1912 per 100 000 of population there were only 158 available hospital beds, 13 doctors, 17 nurses and 17 midwives. In 1916 cholera had mortality rate of 45%, typhoid - 80%. Anti-vac crowd would be proud of Czarist Russia - virtually no of this fakey nonsense! The mortality rate for smallpox in Russia was 508 per million people, in Germany - 1; from measles - 1062, in Romania - 13. Mortality from scarlet fever, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhoid and cholera Russia was ranked first among the Great Powers - and not only them.

Cursed be Bolshies and their free healthcare! What a country they've ruined!

In 1850 Russian GТP was 2/5 of Prussian. In 1913 it’s been only 1/3.

Didn’t Prussia swallow most of the rest of Germany between those two dates? Are you comparing apples to apples or apples to coconuts here?

No, I think it's a fair comparison. Rapid development simply started later in Russia than Germany - in peaceful alternate histories the Russian economy consistently grows faster than the German from 1914-45.

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was far more advanced than contemporary China, and substantially more so even than China in 1949.

But suffice to say that by that period ~80% of Russian children were or had been in school, so mass literacy was imminent, and though it was beginning from a low base, industrial growth was the highest in Europe and there is good evidence that a rapid industrial takeoff was about to occur.

Ah, yes! The glorious Russia That We Have Lost.

"And Shubert's waltzes,
And crunch of French bread" (c)

Or we can go full reta... eh, I mean Tal'kov.

Or we can get real and admit that before the godless Juden-Bolsheviks trampled the Holy Rus with their dirty feet, the situation in early XX c. Russian Empire was anything but rosy.

- Percentage of the literate population - 27% (1914). Some context - at least 85% of Russian Empire's population were peasants. The literacy among them was 22%.
- As for the going to school - again, some context. Those who went beyond 3-year "церковно-приходская" school constituted only 10%.

- You are talking about "big potential" in literacy. Have you heard about the "циркуляр о кухаркиных детях" which prohibited University education for everyone except the children of nobles and chinovniki? That's, what - less than 5% of all population?

- Those who are crying about "Stalin sending Russians to gulags" (tm). Surprise-surprise - Czarist government also sent people to prison and working camps, or to in the middle of nowhere. Guess what - lots of those folks were Russians! Like, you know, the chief clientele of "Stolypin's traincars".

- And as for Russian Empire's economy - how thanks to the Holy Invisible Hand of the Market (tm) and without Bloody Bolsheviks everything would be fine and dandy - c'mon! In 1913 Russian Empire's share in world economy was 4-5%.

- How about the "drunken budget" of 1906-13? In years prior - 1900-06 - the deficit was enormous.

- By 1917 Russian Empire had 70 260 km of railroads. USA in 1890 already had 263 227 km of them. The quality of Czarist time rails was extremely shitty and nearly all of said railroads were single-track.

- By 1917 Russian empire had 1500 tractors, only 11% of which were not imported.

- Adepts of "Russia That We Have Lost" (tm) preach that if not the Revolution and bloody Commies then Holy Rus would SUDDENLY start improving and developing by leaps and bounds. Because reasons. But should we, say, compare the level of Russian Empire in the past, long before the War and Revolution, with its fellow Great European powers, the picture would be rather sad. In 1850 Russian GТP was 2/5 of Prussian. In 1913 it's been only 1/3.

- What was the engine of economic development of Russian empire? Foreign investments and credits, thanks to which the whole country had been sold out to the international capital. Like - for real. Bloody Bolshies were right here. Foreigners totally owned oil industry, metallurgy, shipbuilding (does it remind you of anything ?), and about of 80-90% of banks and various factories. That's why they were so active during the Civil War and hated commies for "nationalization". They were deprived of their own "banana republic"! BTW - how were South American banana republics doing in 1920-30? Super-plus-good?

- Foreign debt of Russian Empire would make Poroshenko proud of himself and his wise financial policy (although, he is working hard to correct that). In 1912 Russian Empire owed to France alone 2 bln francs (in gold).

Hey, someone said about "avoiding the demographic catastrophe"? High fertility rate? How about getting real instead:

- Man's average lifespan - 32.4 y. Woman's average lifespan - 34.5 y. (1900). That's in the whole of Empire. In "Russia's proper" man's average lifespan was 29 years. In Malorossia - 33 years. Only 40% of citizens of the central Russia survived till 40 y.o.
- For 1000 persons - 47 births and 30 deaths - 2 times worse than in Kaiser's Germany. Infant mortality of babies younger than 1 y.o. - 27.1% (1910). From 1/3 to 1/4 of them didn't reach even 5 years.

- In Russian Empire from epidemics per 100 000 died more than 500 people, while in Germany - 100. In 1912 per 100 000 of population there were only 158 available hospital beds, 13 doctors, 17 nurses and 17 midwives. In 1916 cholera had mortality rate of 45%, typhoid - 80%. Anti-vac crowd would be proud of Czarist Russia - virtually no of this fakey nonsense! The mortality rate for smallpox in Russia was 508 per million people, in Germany - 1; from measles - 1062, in Romania - 13. Mortality from scarlet fever, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhoid and cholera Russia was ranked first among the Great Powers - and not only them.

Cursed be Bolshies and their free healthcare! What a country they've ruined!

Ah, yes! The glorious Russia That We Have Lost.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am not an uncritical admirer of Tsarist Russia like you are a Stalinist ideologue. Sorry about that.

- Percentage of the literate population – 27% (1914).

And going up very quickly, reaching 38%-45% (two different estimates) by 1917. By that period 80% of Russian schoolchildren were or had been in school so mass literacy within another generation was inevitable. It is a legitimate criticism of the Tsarist period that they were slow to start on mass literacy campaigns relative to the advanced parts of Europe, but it is wrong to claim that it was not in full swing by the 20th century.

- You are talking about “big potential” in literacy. Have you heard about the “циркуляр о кухаркиных детях” which prohibited University education for everyone except the children of nobles and chinovniki? That’s, what – less than 5% of all population?

But yes the Bolsheviks were more egalitarian doing away with degenerate bourgeois things like entrance exams entirely (with only Stalin putting an end to that particular madness in the early 1930s) while exiling evil bourgeois reactionary eaters like Sikorsky and Zworykin.

Because reasons. But should we, say, compare the level of Russian Empire in the past, long before the War and Revolution, with its fellow Great European powers, the picture would be rather sad. In 1850 Russian GТP was 2/5 of Prussian. In 1913 it’s been only 1/3.

A basic pattern of economic history is that growth in a poor highly agricultural country (as Russia was in 1850) is very hard because it is hard to come up with surpluses to channel into investment. Once you become substantially urbanized and industrialized, however, further growth is increasingly easy to come by (assuming you have the needed level of human capital) until you start converging to the level of the leading countries. Germany around 1850 was at exactly around that Goldilocks zone and thus saw very rapidly growth during the 1860-1914 period as it industrialized rapidly. For Russia that period was only beginning from around 1910.

And what is you antipathies to the “sovok regime”, AK? Family history? Is this a personal matter for you?

This blog is not about my family history and I am certainly not going to engage in conversations about that with a sovok freak such as yourself.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am not an uncritical admirer of Tsarist Russia like you are a Stalinist ideologue. Sorry about that.

Not critical - but admirer? And me - "a Stalinist ideologue"? Top kek!

And going up very quickly, reaching 38%-45% (two different estimates) by 1917. By that period 80% of Russian schoolchildren were or had been in school so mass literacy within another generation was inevitable. It is a legitimate criticism of the Tsarist period that they were slow to start on mass literacy campaigns relative to the advanced parts of Europe, but it is wrong to claim that it was not in full swing by the 20th century.

38-43% according to some estimates (not concrete data) - and only in European part of the Empire. With huge differences between Baltic gubernias (70-78% in some parts) vs the rest of Russia's proper, and men vs women.

As for the fantastic number of 80% schoolchildren - can I see the source? 1911 report by the Ministry of Education shows only 43% of kids from 8 to 12 enrolling in schools. The same report puts the literacy level of the kids of that category (8 to 12) at 30.1% (in cities - 46.6%% in rural areas, 28.3%). And that's mainly boys - girls education was even worse.

And this "hope" for some educational miracle especially amazing, given that 1926 census puts the level of literacy at 56.6%. And in 1939 - 87.3%.

"Дотянулся, проклятый Сталин" (c)

No I haven’t because it did no such thing.

But yes the Bolsheviks were more egalitarian doing away with degenerate bourgeois things like entrance exams entirely (with only Stalin putting an end to that particular madness in the early 1930s) while exiling evil bourgeois reactionary eaters like Sikorsky and Zworykin.

- Zworykin - served in White Army (volunteer). In 1919 was already in New York, when Kolchak's government fell.

None of them was exiled. They chose to emigrate. Apparently, Stalin, Lenin and all Juden-Bolsheviks were also responsible for their choices?

This blog is not about my family history and I am certainly not going to engage in conversations about that with a sovok freak such as yourself.

"Sovok freak". Again - top kek, AK! This "sovok freak" is Russian, born in the USSR and raised in modern Russia, who still lives there. Kinda someone who can reasonably claim to represent a large part of demographic in his views.

much like denial of global warming is a tenet of the Red Tribe and blank slatism is a tenet of the Blue Tribe

I know that the Earth has been warming, I just don’t know why. I’ll try to make a list of all the things that “science” has told the public in my lifetime that turned out to be false or were later contradicted by the same voice of scientific authority.

Race is a social construct.

The Neanderthals couldn’t have interbred with our ancestors. I remember a guy arguing for the multiregional theory of human origins on IRC many years ago. I thought he was such a crackpot. I’d read in dead-tree encyclopedias that we all came from Africa 60k years ago. Who was he compared to the people who wrote encyclopedia articles?

In the 90s everyone was told that red meat was bad and fruit was good. I think there’s been some kind of flip-flop on that.

The world was told that AIDS was everyman’s disease. Everyone believed this – my father pitied me and my whole generation, saying we weren’t going to have any fun because of AIDS. The first time I saw someone online saying that it was almost impossible for a man to catch AIDS from vaginal intercourse I didn’t believe it. It took many exposures to that info and the decline in the media campaign for that to sink in.

Where did the hole in the ozone layer go? It was such a big deal. It was going to grow and grow until we were all irradiated and dying from skin cancer. Like the AIDS-is-everyman’s-disease idea it was never explicitly called off. It just faded without an explanation.

The guy who came up with the first global warming models in 1896 was also a proponent of eugenics. Hope your head hasn't just exploded. ;)

Incidentally, the degree of warming he predicted relative to CO2 emissions correlates very well with medium IPCC scenarios today generated by supercomputers and orders of magnitude more climate knowledge. That's quite impressive.

In the 90s everyone was told that red meat was bad and fruit was good.

Not really. A huge metastudy done recently did show red meat to be a significant risk factor, though far less than processed meat. I don't think anyone seriously argued fruit are bad. Even the paleo people just tell you not to eat them in liquid form. On the other hand, you are correct on the reversals wrt to eggs and butter. I strongly suspect the current scare over salt will go the same way soon.

Where did the hole in the ozone layer go? It was such a big deal. It was going to grow and grow until we were all irradiated and dying from skin cancer.

The proportion of admixture suggested by recent results is not sufficient to consider abandoning an essentially single-origin model.Serious fear of AIDS spreading rapidly among normal people had dissipated by 1990 at the latest.

much like denial of global warming is a tenet of the Red Tribe and blank slatism is a tenet of the Blue Tribe

I know that the Earth has been warming, I just don't know why. I'll try to make a list of all the things that "science" has told the public in my lifetime that turned out to be false or were later contradicted by the same voice of scientific authority.

Race is a social construct.

The Neanderthals couldn't have interbred with our ancestors. I remember a guy arguing for the multiregional theory of human origins on IRC many years ago. I thought he was such a crackpot. I'd read in dead-tree encyclopedias that we all came from Africa 60k years ago. Who was he compared to the people who wrote encyclopedia articles?

In the 90s everyone was told that red meat was bad and fruit was good. I think there's been some kind of flip-flop on that.

The world was told that AIDS was everyman's disease. Everyone believed this - my father pitied me and my whole generation, saying we weren't going to have any fun because of AIDS. The first time I saw someone online saying that it was almost impossible for a man to catch AIDS from vaginal intercourse I didn't believe it. It took many exposures to that info and the decline in the media campaign for that to sink in.

Where did the hole in the ozone layer go? It was such a big deal. It was going to grow and grow until we were all irradiated and dying from skin cancer. Like the AIDS-is-everyman's-disease idea it was never explicitly called off. It just faded without an explanation.

I know that the Earth has been warming, I just don’t know why.

The guy who came up with the first global warming models in 1896 was also a proponent of eugenics. Hope your head hasn’t just exploded.

Incidentally, the degree of warming he predicted relative to CO2 emissions correlates very well with medium IPCC scenarios today generated by supercomputers and orders of magnitude more climate knowledge. That’s quite impressive.

In the 90s everyone was told that red meat was bad and fruit was good.

Not really. A huge metastudy done recently did show red meat to be a significant risk factor, though far less than processed meat. I don’t think anyone seriously argued fruit are bad. Even the paleo people just tell you not to eat them in liquid form. On the other hand, you are correct on the reversals wrt to eggs and butter. I strongly suspect the current scare over salt will go the same way soon.

Where did the hole in the ozone layer go? It was such a big deal. It was going to grow and grow until we were all irradiated and dying from skin cancer.

How many factories, universities, shipyards, planes, trains, tractors, etc, etc did the great leader of the Ukrainian people Stepan Bandera built in his time, so that even generations to come would have to try very hard to squander that?

Another point about Stalin billboards, Stalin statues, etc. in modern Russia. It’s always a grassroots initiative and it’s always meant as the protest against the regime. Yes, including against Putin. Those in the West who keep bleating about Russian opposition — here is your opposition. What, did you expect Kasparov and Masha Gessen?

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was far more advanced than contemporary China, and substantially more so even than China in 1949.

But suffice to say that by that period ~80% of Russian children were or had been in school, so mass literacy was imminent, and though it was beginning from a low base, industrial growth was the highest in Europe and there is good evidence that a rapid industrial takeoff was about to occur.

Ah, yes! The glorious Russia That We Have Lost.

"And Shubert's waltzes,
And crunch of French bread" (c)

Or we can go full reta... eh, I mean Tal'kov.

Or we can get real and admit that before the godless Juden-Bolsheviks trampled the Holy Rus with their dirty feet, the situation in early XX c. Russian Empire was anything but rosy.

- Percentage of the literate population - 27% (1914). Some context - at least 85% of Russian Empire's population were peasants. The literacy among them was 22%.
- As for the going to school - again, some context. Those who went beyond 3-year "церковно-приходская" school constituted only 10%.

- You are talking about "big potential" in literacy. Have you heard about the "циркуляр о кухаркиных детях" which prohibited University education for everyone except the children of nobles and chinovniki? That's, what - less than 5% of all population?

- Those who are crying about "Stalin sending Russians to gulags" (tm). Surprise-surprise - Czarist government also sent people to prison and working camps, or to in the middle of nowhere. Guess what - lots of those folks were Russians! Like, you know, the chief clientele of "Stolypin's traincars".

- And as for Russian Empire's economy - how thanks to the Holy Invisible Hand of the Market (tm) and without Bloody Bolsheviks everything would be fine and dandy - c'mon! In 1913 Russian Empire's share in world economy was 4-5%.

- How about the "drunken budget" of 1906-13? In years prior - 1900-06 - the deficit was enormous.

- By 1917 Russian Empire had 70 260 km of railroads. USA in 1890 already had 263 227 km of them. The quality of Czarist time rails was extremely shitty and nearly all of said railroads were single-track.

- By 1917 Russian empire had 1500 tractors, only 11% of which were not imported.

- Adepts of "Russia That We Have Lost" (tm) preach that if not the Revolution and bloody Commies then Holy Rus would SUDDENLY start improving and developing by leaps and bounds. Because reasons. But should we, say, compare the level of Russian Empire in the past, long before the War and Revolution, with its fellow Great European powers, the picture would be rather sad. In 1850 Russian GТP was 2/5 of Prussian. In 1913 it's been only 1/3.

- What was the engine of economic development of Russian empire? Foreign investments and credits, thanks to which the whole country had been sold out to the international capital. Like - for real. Bloody Bolshies were right here. Foreigners totally owned oil industry, metallurgy, shipbuilding (does it remind you of anything ?), and about of 80-90% of banks and various factories. That's why they were so active during the Civil War and hated commies for "nationalization". They were deprived of their own "banana republic"! BTW - how were South American banana republics doing in 1920-30? Super-plus-good?

- Foreign debt of Russian Empire would make Poroshenko proud of himself and his wise financial policy (although, he is working hard to correct that). In 1912 Russian Empire owed to France alone 2 bln francs (in gold).

Hey, someone said about "avoiding the demographic catastrophe"? High fertility rate? How about getting real instead:

- Man's average lifespan - 32.4 y. Woman's average lifespan - 34.5 y. (1900). That's in the whole of Empire. In "Russia's proper" man's average lifespan was 29 years. In Malorossia - 33 years. Only 40% of citizens of the central Russia survived till 40 y.o.
- For 1000 persons - 47 births and 30 deaths - 2 times worse than in Kaiser's Germany. Infant mortality of babies younger than 1 y.o. - 27.1% (1910). From 1/3 to 1/4 of them didn't reach even 5 years.

- In Russian Empire from epidemics per 100 000 died more than 500 people, while in Germany - 100. In 1912 per 100 000 of population there were only 158 available hospital beds, 13 doctors, 17 nurses and 17 midwives. In 1916 cholera had mortality rate of 45%, typhoid - 80%. Anti-vac crowd would be proud of Czarist Russia - virtually no of this fakey nonsense! The mortality rate for smallpox in Russia was 508 per million people, in Germany - 1; from measles - 1062, in Romania - 13. Mortality from scarlet fever, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhoid and cholera Russia was ranked first among the Great Powers - and not only them.

Cursed be Bolshies and their free healthcare! What a country they've ruined!

You should educate yourself on what Stolypin’s rail cars were used for during Stolypin’s time.

Involuntary relocation of peasant families to often undeveloped parts of the Empire including (wait for it!) Siberia. How many of them died on the way there? Should we build a memorial to them? I mean - the whole civilized world is blaming Stalin for using the same type of traincars to ship kulaks, their families and goods to the place of their exile.

I am not going to waste my time regurgitating commonly known and easily accessible data based on the regime’s own archives.

Geem I didn't know that there's been written somewhere that "we must eliminate only most intelligent and productive people". In what archives did you unearthed that knowledge, AK? I want to expand my horizons.

They were a small minority. Indeed, many Whites put aside their (very understandable) antipathies to the sovok regime and organized aid shipments to the Soviet Union during the war. The most eminent Russian collaborator Andrey Vlasov joined the Reds very early on and was a favorite of the regime until he was captured by the Germans and suddenly, magically awoke to the horror of Stalin’s dictatorship.

BTW - what was the whole amount of the aid sent by this suddenly pro-Soviet Whites?

And what is you antipathies to the "sovok regime", AK? Family history? Is this a personal matter for you?

Geem I didn’t know that there’s been written somewhere that “we must eliminate only most intelligent and productive people”. In what archives did you unearthed that knowledge, AK? I want to expand my horizons.

That’s how it worked out. For example – the repression of the kulaks. Kulaks were the hardest working and most enterprising of the peasants, and were able to take advantage of conditions due to Stolypin’s reforms and later NEP to live well. For example, in a case I’m personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn’t drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation – he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win – the hired help had been incomeless). Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter. He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled. Who was left in the village? The village drunks were untouched, as were others who were simpler, or less hardworking, and thus poorer.

Soviet policies were a sort of reverse natural selection – the survival of the least fit.

This process also occurred in the cities, where Soviets liquidated a lot of engineers and others who had been successful under the old regime. And of course the military.

That’s how it worked out. For example – the repression of the kulaks. Kulaks were the hardest working and most enterprising of the peasants, and were able to take advantage of conditions due to Stolypin’s reforms and later NEP to live well.

This is BS myth that needs to die in fire. They were not “hardest working”, because to be a kulak you had to employ a workforce, i.e. batraks. Their “entrepreneurship” and “taking advantage of conditions” should be translated as “usury”, “raider takeover of communal land” and terror tactics against the rest of villagers.

For example, in a case I’m personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn’t drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation – he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win – the hired help had been incomeless).

How was it possible? More details. No, please – this is actually very important. How could he acquire more money that others? Didn’t he have to pay taxes and tithes? What was his plot of the land, allocated by the mir? The number of workers in his family? Did he use hired labor – and what were the circumstances for these people to become batraks? The time when this took place?

Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter.

Because he was. Exploitation of one person by another, usury and purchase of land were all illegal according to the Soviet legislation. Private entrepreneurship is not a human right. Shockin’, right?

So, being a kulak WAS a crime.

He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled.

Again – more details, please. Was it a court decision to execute him and exile the family? Or was he lynched by the villagers (not a rare occurrence even in pre October-1917 Russia)? Was he involved in counter-revolutionary activity, did he actively resist the creation of kolkhozes, did he kill anyone? Did he belong to some gang? Or maybe some sordid details about his actions during the Civil War surfaced?

This process also occurred in the cities, where Soviets liquidated a lot of engineers and others who had been successful under the old regime. And of course the military.

Spare me this nonsense! Especially – about the “talented military, purged by Stalin”. Nothing was random. For every court decision was a reason, a particular article of the legal code and the background of the “victim” as well. No one was killed because “they were better”.

"For example, in a case I’m personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn’t drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation – he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win – the hired help had been income less)."

Are you aware that very often these enterprising kulaks "paid" the labor with alcohol rather than money? A situation somewhat similar to this existed in mining communities in the USA up to the late 1960's as the owners of mines paid labor in wooden "dollars" that were redeemable only at their banks and company stores. Much worse, when the mine folded up and the company left town, the wooden "dollars" were worthless. Both systems are exploitative.

Didn't Prussia swallow most of the rest of Germany between those two dates? Are you comparing apples to apples or apples to coconuts here?

No, I think it’s a fair comparison. Rapid development simply started later in Russia than Germany – in peaceful alternate histories the Russian economy consistently grows faster than the German from 1914-45.

much like denial of global warming is a tenet of the Red Tribe and blank slatism is a tenet of the Blue Tribe

I know that the Earth has been warming, I just don't know why. I'll try to make a list of all the things that "science" has told the public in my lifetime that turned out to be false or were later contradicted by the same voice of scientific authority.

Race is a social construct.

The Neanderthals couldn't have interbred with our ancestors. I remember a guy arguing for the multiregional theory of human origins on IRC many years ago. I thought he was such a crackpot. I'd read in dead-tree encyclopedias that we all came from Africa 60k years ago. Who was he compared to the people who wrote encyclopedia articles?

In the 90s everyone was told that red meat was bad and fruit was good. I think there's been some kind of flip-flop on that.

The world was told that AIDS was everyman's disease. Everyone believed this - my father pitied me and my whole generation, saying we weren't going to have any fun because of AIDS. The first time I saw someone online saying that it was almost impossible for a man to catch AIDS from vaginal intercourse I didn't believe it. It took many exposures to that info and the decline in the media campaign for that to sink in.

Where did the hole in the ozone layer go? It was such a big deal. It was going to grow and grow until we were all irradiated and dying from skin cancer. Like the AIDS-is-everyman's-disease idea it was never explicitly called off. It just faded without an explanation.

The proportion of admixture suggested by recent results is not sufficient to consider abandoning an essentially single-origin model.
Serious fear of AIDS spreading rapidly among normal people had dissipated by 1990 at the latest.

So if we compare him against potential alternatives, the people who could have seized power in his place after Lenin’s death, my feeling is he was the “lesser evil” and that’s to his credit. But perhaps someone can show me what would have been a better trajectory for Russia at this juncture (who, how, realistically?)

Hard to say, but I think a fair argument could be that things might have gone better if the Bukharin-Rykov bloc that won out in the factional struggles of the 1920s.

* They were the strongest supporters of the NEP, which had far better long-term prospects than central planning.
* Bukharin opposed (and privately condemned) collectivization.
* Bukharin was personally popular within the Communist Party (and not in a creepy culty way like with Lenin and Stalin)
* Highly intellectual, relatively moderate, unlikely to devolve into totalitarian dictatorship.
* Had connections with European Social Democratic parties. This is very alt history-like, but this might have made (1) the German SPD less utterly allergic to the KPD which would have greatly complicated the Nazis' rise to power, and (2) probably made the Nazis less popular to boot as the perception of the Soviet threat would not have been as dire.
* Was not an ideologue committed to world revolution and in fact was the guy who came up with the "socialism in one country" concept once the prospects of world revolution faded away.
* As a popular moderate without dictatorial and paranoiac tendencies, unlikely to mass purge the Red Army (and replace many of them with uneducated yesmen).
* The peasants would not have been so unhappy with the regime as under Stalin, and thus in the event of a war with the Third Reich, Soviet soldiers would have likely been less ready to surrender en masse as they did in summer 1941.
* The Russia historians (and prominent Russophile) Stephen Cohen is of the opinion Bukharin would have been much better than Stalin.
* Incidentally, Bukharin and Rykov were the only ethnic Russians amongst Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Stalin. One important if not very PC and vastly underexplored factor is to what extent the various ethnic minorities in the early Soviet state were really acting on petty grievances against Russians (even subconsciously) as opposed to the interests of the Soviet state or even the Marxist project as such.

Disadvantages:

* Economic development would have been less industry-heavy (if lopsidedly so) during the 1930s. But, lopsided or not, it is a fact that industrial power is what matters most in a Great Power war.

Although the disadvantage is a very significant one, I think the advantages easily outweight them however.

Soviet soldiers were not willing to surrender easily even in the early weeks of Barbarossa. German memoirs are clear on this.
Bukharin was a weakling and it’s hard to see a plausible path to power for him.

This article is correct; there is a parallel to a lot of the Bandera support among Ukrainians.

How many factories, universities, shipyards, planes, trains, tractors, etc, etc did the great leader of the Ukrainian people Stepan Bandera built in his time, so that even generations to come would have to try very hard to squander that?

You should educate yourself on what Stolypin's rail cars were used for during Stolypin's time.

Involuntary relocation of peasant families to often undeveloped parts of the Empire including (wait for it!) Siberia. How many of them died on the way there? Should we build a memorial to them? I mean – the whole civilized world is blaming Stalin for using the same type of traincars to ship kulaks, their families and goods to the place of their exile.

Geem I didn’t know that there’s been written somewhere that “we must eliminate only most intelligent and productive people”. In what archives did you unearthed that knowledge, AK? I want to expand my horizons.

That's how it worked out. For example - the repression of the kulaks. Kulaks were the hardest working and most enterprising of the peasants, and were able to take advantage of conditions due to Stolypin's reforms and later NEP to live well. For example, in a case I'm personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn't drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation - he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win - the hired help had been incomeless). Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter. He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled. Who was left in the village? The village drunks were untouched, as were others who were simpler, or less hardworking, and thus poorer.

Soviet policies were a sort of reverse natural selection - the survival of the least fit.

This process also occurred in the cities, where Soviets liquidated a lot of engineers and others who had been successful under the old regime. And of course the military.

That’s how it worked out. For example – the repression of the kulaks. Kulaks were the hardest working and most enterprising of the peasants, and were able to take advantage of conditions due to Stolypin’s reforms and later NEP to live well.

This is BS myth that needs to die in fire. They were not “hardest working”, because to be a kulak you had to employ a workforce, i.e. batraks. Their “entrepreneurship” and “taking advantage of conditions” should be translated as “usury”, “raider takeover of communal land” and terror tactics against the rest of villagers.

For example, in a case I’m personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn’t drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation – he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win – the hired help had been incomeless).

How was it possible? More details. No, please – this is actually very important. How could he acquire more money that others? Didn’t he have to pay taxes and tithes? What was his plot of the land, allocated by the mir? The number of workers in his family? Did he use hired labor – and what were the circumstances for these people to become batraks? The time when this took place?

Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter.

Because he was. Exploitation of one person by another, usury and purchase of land were all illegal according to the Soviet legislation. Private entrepreneurship is not a human right. Shockin’, right?

So, being a kulak WAS a crime.

He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled.

Again – more details, please. Was it a court decision to execute him and exile the family? Or was he lynched by the villagers (not a rare occurrence even in pre October-1917 Russia)? Was he involved in counter-revolutionary activity, did he actively resist the creation of kolkhozes, did he kill anyone? Did he belong to some gang? Or maybe some sordid details about his actions during the Civil War surfaced?

This process also occurred in the cities, where Soviets liquidated a lot of engineers and others who had been successful under the old regime. And of course the military.

Spare me this nonsense! Especially – about the “talented military, purged by Stalin”. Nothing was random. For every court decision was a reason, a particular article of the legal code and the background of the “victim” as well. No one was killed because “they were better”.

This is BS myth that needs to die in fire. They were not “hardest working”, because to be a kulak you had to employ a workforce, i.e. batraks. Their “entrepreneurship” and “taking advantage of conditions” should be translated as “usury”, “raider takeover of communal land” and terror tactics against the rest of villagers.

Nonsense. It meant in this man's case working the fields even on Sunday, not drinking, and saving extra money. Some people are more hard-working, future oriented and clever than others. Such people tend to be more successful than those who do not have these traits. There is nothing "magical" about acquiring a little bit of capital, under free-market conditions. Perhaps if you had lived in a Western country you would understand this.

How was it possible? More details. No, please – this is actually very important. How could he acquire more money that others? Didn’t he have to pay taxes and tithes?

The tax rate during the time of the Russian Empire was very modest. Indeed, the times of the late Russian Empire were rather good for peasants. The only contact with the government consisted of a once-yearly visit from the taxman. NEP was also fairly hands-off from the government.

The number of workers in his family? Did he use hired labor – and what were the circumstances for these people to become batraks? The time when this took place?

I don't know specific numbers. He was helped by cousins and his children. Hired labor came later, after he was able to purchase more land.

Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter.

Because he was. Exploitation of one person by another, usury and purchase of land were all illegal according to the Soviet legislation.

It depends on how one defines "exploiter." If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before - normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people's land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed.

"He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled."

Again – more details, please. Was it a court decision to execute him and exile the family?

Yes. Under Stalin the tax rate was raised to some ridiculous, unpayable amount. Since he couldn't pay it, all the land was confiscated. The house was razed.

Or was he lynched by the villagers (not a rare occurrence even in pre October-1917 Russia)?

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him. They liked that he built the village's windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled. He also taught himself how to read and, being one of the few "literate" adults in the village would read documents or whatever to them, as needed, which further endeared him to them. When one of the sons (who was just old enough to escape and live on his own when the family were exiled) returned to the village for the first time after decades the old villagers greeted him with tears and as some sort of beloved long-lost son.

Was he involved in counter-revolutionary activity, did he actively resist the creation of kolkhozes, did he kill anyone?

Nope. Indeed, some of his descendants "blame" him for being politically passive during the Revolution, staying home and looking after his farm and family rather than fighting against the Bolsheviks. Perhaps if more people had struggled against the Revolution rather than being neutral, the resultant catastrophe would have been avoided.

I suspect he complained to others about collectivization - why wouldn't he? This may have constituted "active resistance."

Spare me this nonsense! Especially – about the “talented military, purged by Stalin”. Nothing was random. For every court decision was a reason, a particular article of the legal code and the background of the “victim” as well. No one was killed because “they were better”.

I'm sure there were legal excuses for culling the best and brightest of the population, in many fields. Educated competent engineers were blamed for problems with industrialization and liquidated as wreckers, for example.

This may be a somewhat wacky and far-out notion, but perhaps Bavaria is a somewhat nicer stretch of real estate than Bukhara.

Granted, the real estate is one thing but the people are another; the spiky-helmet dudes finding themselves saddled with the ol' beer-drinkers, whose fictional claims of "industriousness" and "self-discipline" merely masked the organized theft of their BMWs and bucolic, cobblestoned villages from the local elves and tree spirits.

For such vicious and evil crimes the Bavarians were both totally not mass-murdered and totally deserved to be mass-murdered. The more Bavarians you kill, the more Pro-Bavarian you are. Also, the Weimar Republic was worse than Hitler.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not an uncritical admirer of Tsarist Russia like you are a Stalinist ideologue. Sorry about that.

- Percentage of the literate population – 27% (1914).

And going up very quickly, reaching 38%-45% (two different estimates) by 1917. By that period 80% of Russian schoolchildren were or had been in school so mass literacy within another generation was inevitable. It is a legitimate criticism of the Tsarist period that they were slow to start on mass literacy campaigns relative to the advanced parts of Europe, but it is wrong to claim that it was not in full swing by the 20th century.

- You are talking about “big potential” in literacy. Have you heard about the “циркуляр о кухаркиных детях” which prohibited University education for everyone except the children of nobles and chinovniki? That’s, what – less than 5% of all population?

But yes the Bolsheviks were more egalitarian doing away with degenerate bourgeois things like entrance exams entirely (with only Stalin putting an end to that particular madness in the early 1930s) while exiling evil bourgeois reactionary eaters like Sikorsky and Zworykin.

Because reasons. But should we, say, compare the level of Russian Empire in the past, long before the War and Revolution, with its fellow Great European powers, the picture would be rather sad. In 1850 Russian GТP was 2/5 of Prussian. In 1913 it’s been only 1/3.

A basic pattern of economic history is that growth in a poor highly agricultural country (as Russia was in 1850) is very hard because it is hard to come up with surpluses to channel into investment. Once you become substantially urbanized and industrialized, however, further growth is increasingly easy to come by (assuming you have the needed level of human capital) until you start converging to the level of the leading countries. Germany around 1850 was at exactly around that Goldilocks zone and thus saw very rapidly growth during the 1860-1914 period as it industrialized rapidly. For Russia that period was only beginning from around 1910.

And what is you antipathies to the “sovok regime”, AK? Family history? Is this a personal matter for you?

This blog is not about my family history and I am certainly not going to engage in conversations about that with a sovok freak such as yourself.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am not an uncritical admirer of Tsarist Russia like you are a Stalinist ideologue. Sorry about that.

Not critical – but admirer? And me – “a Stalinist ideologue”? Top kek!

And going up very quickly, reaching 38%-45% (two different estimates) by 1917. By that period 80% of Russian schoolchildren were or had been in school so mass literacy within another generation was inevitable. It is a legitimate criticism of the Tsarist period that they were slow to start on mass literacy campaigns relative to the advanced parts of Europe, but it is wrong to claim that it was not in full swing by the 20th century.

38-43% according to some estimates (not concrete data) – and only in European part of the Empire. With huge differences between Baltic gubernias (70-78% in some parts) vs the rest of Russia’s proper, and men vs women.

As for the fantastic number of 80% schoolchildren – can I see the source? 1911 report by the Ministry of Education shows only 43% of kids from 8 to 12 enrolling in schools. The same report puts the literacy level of the kids of that category (8 to 12) at 30.1% (in cities – 46.6%% in rural areas, 28.3%). And that’s mainly boys – girls education was even worse.

And this “hope” for some educational miracle especially amazing, given that 1926 census puts the level of literacy at 56.6%. And in 1939 – 87.3%.

“Дотянулся, проклятый Сталин” (c)

No I haven’t because it did no such thing.

But yes the Bolsheviks were more egalitarian doing away with degenerate bourgeois things like entrance exams entirely (with only Stalin putting an end to that particular madness in the early 1930s) while exiling evil bourgeois reactionary eaters like Sikorsky and Zworykin.

- Zworykin – served in White Army (volunteer). In 1919 was already in New York, when Kolchak’s government fell.

None of them was exiled. They chose to emigrate. Apparently, Stalin, Lenin and all Juden-Bolsheviks were also responsible for their choices?

This blog is not about my family history and I am certainly not going to engage in conversations about that with a sovok freak such as yourself.

“Sovok freak”. Again – top kek, AK! This “sovok freak” is Russian, born in the USSR and raised in modern Russia, who still lives there. Kinda someone who can reasonably claim to represent a large part of demographic in his views.

None of them was exiled. They chose to emigrate. Apparently, Stalin, Lenin and all Juden-Bolsheviks were also responsible for their choices?"

You are equivalent to the American leftists who say that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz "lied" about their families fleeing the Cuban Revolution, because their parents and/or others in the family left before Comrade Fidel's "triumphal" arrival in Havana in late 1959. Revolutions don't happen overnight. Oh wait, it's "unpatriotic" to abandon your "country" when "enlightened" Marxists turn it into hell above ground. The definition of patriotism as paying homage to the powers that be is a primary tool of tyrants everywhere.

and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

And yet even after the war Russians continued to be exterminated in a famine (while the USSR sent grain to East Germany!!) at a relative rate comparable to that incurred by the Germans during their expulsion from Eastern Europe.

Ultimately I don't see anything particularly contradictory in any of the above. Indeed Stalin made some rhetorical concessions towards Russians (as he did to other nationalities), especially after the war. By that period he had come to see himself as a Tsar of sorts, holding Ivan IV (Grozny) in particularly high regard. But I would sooner compare it to the way one grows attached to one's country of choice when playing as its eternal leader in Civilization or Europa Universalis. :)

The concessions were not just rhetorical:

1) Stalin began reversing the korenizatsiya policies as early as 1930, first in Donbass, and then expanded this reversal to the whole country. By mid 1930s Russian language was compulsory throughout the USSR.

2) The entire Soviet culture had a clear Russian slant by 1930s. Traditional Russian opera was back in the Bolshoi with a vengeance. A memorable anecdote illustrated the spirit of the times as well as Stalin’s mindset: Party’s cultural minion Bolshakov suggested that the traditional ending to “Ivan Susanin” that sings about the tsar be changed and to that Stalin quipped:”I have a better idea. How about we keep the ending and change Bolshakov?”. The fledgling movie industry included besides “Battleship Potemkin” masterpieces such as “Alexander Nevsky” and “Ivan Grozny”. The former is particularly Russia-centric featuring heavy Russian Orthodox symbolism and Russian Orthodox Church being presented in a very positive light. There was also a much lesser known biopic about hetman Khmelnitsky from 1940 which was also had a Russian slant to it(or better, told the truth about Khmelnitsky).

3) Stalin began easing the repressions upon the Russian Orthodox Church in the inter-war period, making it quasi-official state religion by the end of the war. At the time of Stalin’s death the Church was almost at a pre-revolutionary level when it came to number of parishes and churches.

4) Other aspects of Russian tradition began to re-appear during Stalin. Cossacks ceased to be the bogey-man and were in fact all but officially rehabilitated by the 1930s. The last Party congress before the war saw scenes of Cossacks in traditional garb talk quite amicably to Stalin, much to the chagrin of some non-purged old Bolsheviks.

5) You can tell a lot by the country’s national anthem. The Internationale was replaced in 1944 with an anthem that in it’s first two verses sang about the unbreakable union forged by “velikaya Rus”.”Rus” is a far greater concept then “Russia”, it denotes a cultural and a spritual realm not just a geopolitical one.

There is also more to show that Stalin paid far more then lip-service to Russia and Russians but these are just the top of my head.

I am not going to waste my time regurgitating commonly known and easily accessible data based on the regime’s own archives.

Geem I didn't know that there's been written somewhere that "we must eliminate only most intelligent and productive people". In what archives did you unearthed that knowledge, AK? I want to expand my horizons.

They were a small minority. Indeed, many Whites put aside their (very understandable) antipathies to the sovok regime and organized aid shipments to the Soviet Union during the war. The most eminent Russian collaborator Andrey Vlasov joined the Reds very early on and was a favorite of the regime until he was captured by the Germans and suddenly, magically awoke to the horror of Stalin’s dictatorship.

BTW - what was the whole amount of the aid sent by this suddenly pro-Soviet Whites?

And what is you antipathies to the "sovok regime", AK? Family history? Is this a personal matter for you?

[BTW – what was the whole amount of the aid sent by this suddenly pro-Soviet Whites?]

In proportion to their limited means and opportunity to supply it. If you read more memoirs and diaries, and fewer propaganda tracts, you would be aware that sympathy for the USSR at war among very anti-Bolshevik Whites was not an imaginary phenomenon.

How many factories, universities, shipyards, planes, trains, tractors, etc, etc did the great leader of the Ukrainian people Stepan Bandera built in his time, so that even generations to come would have to try very hard to squander that?

This is not the way that support for Bandera is like support for Stalin. You probably know that, and your comment is probably disingenuous.

That’s how it worked out. For example – the repression of the kulaks. Kulaks were the hardest working and most enterprising of the peasants, and were able to take advantage of conditions due to Stolypin’s reforms and later NEP to live well.

This is BS myth that needs to die in fire. They were not “hardest working”, because to be a kulak you had to employ a workforce, i.e. batraks. Their “entrepreneurship” and “taking advantage of conditions” should be translated as “usury”, “raider takeover of communal land” and terror tactics against the rest of villagers.

For example, in a case I’m personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn’t drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation – he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win – the hired help had been incomeless).

How was it possible? More details. No, please – this is actually very important. How could he acquire more money that others? Didn’t he have to pay taxes and tithes? What was his plot of the land, allocated by the mir? The number of workers in his family? Did he use hired labor – and what were the circumstances for these people to become batraks? The time when this took place?

Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter.

Because he was. Exploitation of one person by another, usury and purchase of land were all illegal according to the Soviet legislation. Private entrepreneurship is not a human right. Shockin’, right?

So, being a kulak WAS a crime.

He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled.

Again – more details, please. Was it a court decision to execute him and exile the family? Or was he lynched by the villagers (not a rare occurrence even in pre October-1917 Russia)? Was he involved in counter-revolutionary activity, did he actively resist the creation of kolkhozes, did he kill anyone? Did he belong to some gang? Or maybe some sordid details about his actions during the Civil War surfaced?

This process also occurred in the cities, where Soviets liquidated a lot of engineers and others who had been successful under the old regime. And of course the military.

Spare me this nonsense! Especially – about the “talented military, purged by Stalin”. Nothing was random. For every court decision was a reason, a particular article of the legal code and the background of the “victim” as well. No one was killed because “they were better”.

This is BS myth that needs to die in fire. They were not “hardest working”, because to be a kulak you had to employ a workforce, i.e. batraks. Their “entrepreneurship” and “taking advantage of conditions” should be translated as “usury”, “raider takeover of communal land” and terror tactics against the rest of villagers.

Nonsense. It meant in this man’s case working the fields even on Sunday, not drinking, and saving extra money. Some people are more hard-working, future oriented and clever than others. Such people tend to be more successful than those who do not have these traits. There is nothing “magical” about acquiring a little bit of capital, under free-market conditions. Perhaps if you had lived in a Western country you would understand this.

How was it possible? More details. No, please – this is actually very important. How could he acquire more money that others? Didn’t he have to pay taxes and tithes?

The tax rate during the time of the Russian Empire was very modest. Indeed, the times of the late Russian Empire were rather good for peasants. The only contact with the government consisted of a once-yearly visit from the taxman. NEP was also fairly hands-off from the government.

The number of workers in his family? Did he use hired labor – and what were the circumstances for these people to become batraks? The time when this took place?

I don’t know specific numbers. He was helped by cousins and his children. Hired labor came later, after he was able to purchase more land.

Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter.

Because he was. Exploitation of one person by another, usury and purchase of land were all illegal according to the Soviet legislation.

It depends on how one defines “exploiter.” If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before – normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people’s land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed.

“He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled.”

Again – more details, please. Was it a court decision to execute him and exile the family?

Yes. Under Stalin the tax rate was raised to some ridiculous, unpayable amount. Since he couldn’t pay it, all the land was confiscated. The house was razed.

Or was he lynched by the villagers (not a rare occurrence even in pre October-1917 Russia)?

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him. They liked that he built the village’s windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled. He also taught himself how to read and, being one of the few “literate” adults in the village would read documents or whatever to them, as needed, which further endeared him to them. When one of the sons (who was just old enough to escape and live on his own when the family were exiled) returned to the village for the first time after decades the old villagers greeted him with tears and as some sort of beloved long-lost son.

Was he involved in counter-revolutionary activity, did he actively resist the creation of kolkhozes, did he kill anyone?

Nope. Indeed, some of his descendants “blame” him for being politically passive during the Revolution, staying home and looking after his farm and family rather than fighting against the Bolsheviks. Perhaps if more people had struggled against the Revolution rather than being neutral, the resultant catastrophe would have been avoided.

I suspect he complained to others about collectivization – why wouldn’t he? This may have constituted “active resistance.”

Spare me this nonsense! Especially – about the “talented military, purged by Stalin”. Nothing was random. For every court decision was a reason, a particular article of the legal code and the background of the “victim” as well. No one was killed because “they were better”.

I’m sure there were legal excuses for culling the best and brightest of the population, in many fields. Educated competent engineers were blamed for problems with industrialization and liquidated as wreckers, for example.

Nonsense. It meant in this man’s case working the fields even on Sunday, not drinking, and saving extra money. Some people are more hard-working, future oriented and clever than others. Such people tend to be more successful than those who do not have these traits. There is nothing “magical” about acquiring a little bit of capital, under free-market conditions. Perhaps if you had lived in a Western country you would understand this.

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!
b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?
c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?
d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

The tax rate during the time of the Russian Empire was very modest. Indeed, the times of the late Russian Empire were rather good for peasants. The only contact with the government consisted of a once-yearly visit from the taxman. NEP was also fairly hands-off from the government.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!
a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.
b) Peasants had to pay land taxes, direct taxes, “zemskiy sbor”, pay for leasing land from the nobles – with their bread. Oftentimes, the government decided to hike a particular taxes (free market for the win!) to get its hands on more of peasants bread which was meant to be exported abroad.
c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%.
d) Peasant land was taxed twice more than the pomesh’ik owned.
e) In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.
f) And let’s not forget about the indirect question.

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

I don’t know specific numbers. He was helped by cousins and his children. Hired labor came later, after he was able to purchase more land.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more. How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

And when did he purchase that land – during the Soviet Rule? I.e. – illegally?

It depends on how one defines “exploiter.” If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before – normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people’s land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed.

Economic exploitation (according to Marx) is exactly what you just described – the capitalization over other peoples suffering and worse economic condition with the aim of enriching yourself (i.e. “appropriation of another person’s results of labor either without paying for it, or on the provision of return of goods (services, money), the value of which is less than the value created by the labor of the man during his working time”). Why did these people have to sold their labor to someone else and not work their own land? After the revolution and the expropriation of the nobles lands peasant mir got it all – but not individuals within the peasant community. And it was mir who decided how much land should go to anyone.

Stalin could not “steal” their land – because private land ownership was outlawed before him. See “Decree on the Land”, right after the October Revolution.

OTOH it was a fact that this law was violated on massive scale by the kulaks and their henchmen – podkulachniki – who extorted (often with the use of violence) the land from the whole of the peasant community, shrinking the amount of it and causing the pauperization of their fellow villagers who had to become a landless batraks, exploited by kulaks.

Yes. Under Stalin the tax rate was raised to some ridiculous, unpayable amount. Since he couldn’t pay it, all the land was confiscated. The house was razed.

Because he was kulak? And this was part of the policy to eliminate kulaks as a class? Because he, btw, violated the existing legislation?

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him.

Uh-huh. Let’s pretend that this could be even true.

They liked that he built the village’s windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled.

Did they also liked paying him money?

He also taught himself how to read and, being one of the few “literate” adults in the village would read documents or whatever to them, as needed, which further endeared him to them. When one of the sons (who was just old enough to escape and live on his own when the family were exiled) returned to the village for the first time after decades the old villagers greeted him with tears and as some sort of beloved long-lost son.

Nice anecdote.

Nope. Indeed, some of his descendants “blame” him for being politically passive during the Revolution, staying home and looking after his farm and family rather than fighting against the Bolsheviks. Perhaps if more people had struggled against the Revolution rather than being neutral, the resultant catastrophe would have been avoided.

There was no catastrophe. But, should the Whites and Intervents won – well, that WOULD be a catastrophe.

I suspect he complained to others about collectivization – why wouldn’t he? This may have constituted “active resistance.”

Probably more than complained. Anti-Soviet agitation was illegal. Harsh law? Maybe. But the law nonetheless.

I’m sure there were legal excuses for culling the best and brightest of the population, in many fields. Educated competent engineers were blamed for problems with industrialization and liquidated as wreckers, for example.

What – all of them? All 100%? Again – stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

One, Stalin eliminated his Jewish triumvirate competition Zinoviev and Kamenev, as well as the Trotskyite opposition in the purges.

Two, Stalin was weeks away from exiling Jews to Siberia and purging Jewish doctors (Jewish doctor conspiracy), but the winds of fortune shifted and Stalin had a “stroke” on the Jewish holiday Purim, a holiday which celebrates the elimination of our enemies.

And finally, military assistance to the USSR was a quid pro quo. Stalin agreed to make Crimea into a Jewish homeland and expel other ethnic groups. He complied with the expulsion of the Taters, but later reneged on the entire deal.

Stalin ended Jewish power in Russia. We got it back when when Yeltsin and the Harvard Boys (Jeffery Sachs) colluded to hand Russia’s economy over to the Oligarchs. This improved relations with the West. Then Putin came along and got rid of Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky (but he left the rest of our Oligarchs alone). Since that moment, Putin, like Stalin, became the bête noire of the West.

When Hitler rejected his feelers about possible truce after the initial onslaught, opting instead for war of extermination against the “subhumans”, Stalin apparently took great offense at this, and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

Indeed, a theme of Raciology is that “the scientists of Germany well understood that the differences between the Germans and the Russians were extremely insignificant.” In fact, Avdeyev notes that Russians have a higher percentage of light hair and eyes than the European population generally.

One, Stalin eliminated his Jewish triumvirate competition Zinoviev and Kamenev, as well as the Trotskyite opposition in the purges.

Two, Stalin was weeks away from exiling Jews to Siberia and purging Jewish doctors (Jewish doctor conspiracy), but the winds of fortune shifted and Stalin had a "stroke" on the Jewish holiday Purim, a holiday which celebrates the elimination of our enemies.

And finally, military assistance to the USSR was a quid pro quo. Stalin agreed to make Crimea into a Jewish homeland and expel other ethnic groups. He complied with the expulsion of the Taters, but later reneged on the entire deal.

Stalin ended Jewish power in Russia. We got it back when when Yeltsin and the Harvard Boys (Jeffery Sachs) colluded to hand Russia's economy over to the Oligarchs. This improved relations with the West. Then Putin came along and got rid of Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky (but he left the rest of our Oligarchs alone). Since that moment, Putin, like Stalin, became the bête noire of the West.

[BTW – what was the whole amount of the aid sent by this suddenly pro-Soviet Whites?]

In proportion to their limited means and opportunity to supply it. If you read more memoirs and diaries, and fewer propaganda tracts, you would be aware that sympathy for the USSR at war among very anti-Bolshevik Whites was not an imaginary phenomenon.

If you read more memoirs and diaries, and fewer propaganda tracts

Tsk, strawmanning here. I read plenty of White emigrants diaries and bios – and wish the rest did the same. For some of you I recomend the 1940-45 “Belrlin’s diary” of princess M.I. Vasilchikova.

This is BS myth that needs to die in fire. They were not “hardest working”, because to be a kulak you had to employ a workforce, i.e. batraks. Their “entrepreneurship” and “taking advantage of conditions” should be translated as “usury”, “raider takeover of communal land” and terror tactics against the rest of villagers.

Nonsense. It meant in this man's case working the fields even on Sunday, not drinking, and saving extra money. Some people are more hard-working, future oriented and clever than others. Such people tend to be more successful than those who do not have these traits. There is nothing "magical" about acquiring a little bit of capital, under free-market conditions. Perhaps if you had lived in a Western country you would understand this.

How was it possible? More details. No, please – this is actually very important. How could he acquire more money that others? Didn’t he have to pay taxes and tithes?

The tax rate during the time of the Russian Empire was very modest. Indeed, the times of the late Russian Empire were rather good for peasants. The only contact with the government consisted of a once-yearly visit from the taxman. NEP was also fairly hands-off from the government.

The number of workers in his family? Did he use hired labor – and what were the circumstances for these people to become batraks? The time when this took place?

I don't know specific numbers. He was helped by cousins and his children. Hired labor came later, after he was able to purchase more land.

Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter.

Because he was. Exploitation of one person by another, usury and purchase of land were all illegal according to the Soviet legislation.

It depends on how one defines "exploiter." If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before - normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people's land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed.

"He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled."

Again – more details, please. Was it a court decision to execute him and exile the family?

Yes. Under Stalin the tax rate was raised to some ridiculous, unpayable amount. Since he couldn't pay it, all the land was confiscated. The house was razed.

Or was he lynched by the villagers (not a rare occurrence even in pre October-1917 Russia)?

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him. They liked that he built the village's windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled. He also taught himself how to read and, being one of the few "literate" adults in the village would read documents or whatever to them, as needed, which further endeared him to them. When one of the sons (who was just old enough to escape and live on his own when the family were exiled) returned to the village for the first time after decades the old villagers greeted him with tears and as some sort of beloved long-lost son.

Was he involved in counter-revolutionary activity, did he actively resist the creation of kolkhozes, did he kill anyone?

Nope. Indeed, some of his descendants "blame" him for being politically passive during the Revolution, staying home and looking after his farm and family rather than fighting against the Bolsheviks. Perhaps if more people had struggled against the Revolution rather than being neutral, the resultant catastrophe would have been avoided.

I suspect he complained to others about collectivization - why wouldn't he? This may have constituted "active resistance."

Spare me this nonsense! Especially – about the “talented military, purged by Stalin”. Nothing was random. For every court decision was a reason, a particular article of the legal code and the background of the “victim” as well. No one was killed because “they were better”.

I'm sure there were legal excuses for culling the best and brightest of the population, in many fields. Educated competent engineers were blamed for problems with industrialization and liquidated as wreckers, for example.

Nonsense. It meant in this man’s case working the fields even on Sunday, not drinking, and saving extra money. Some people are more hard-working, future oriented and clever than others. Such people tend to be more successful than those who do not have these traits. There is nothing “magical” about acquiring a little bit of capital, under free-market conditions. Perhaps if you had lived in a Western country you would understand this.

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!
b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?
c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?
d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

The tax rate during the time of the Russian Empire was very modest. Indeed, the times of the late Russian Empire were rather good for peasants. The only contact with the government consisted of a once-yearly visit from the taxman. NEP was also fairly hands-off from the government.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!
a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.
b) Peasants had to pay land taxes, direct taxes, “zemskiy sbor”, pay for leasing land from the nobles – with their bread. Oftentimes, the government decided to hike a particular taxes (free market for the win!) to get its hands on more of peasants bread which was meant to be exported abroad.
c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%.
d) Peasant land was taxed twice more than the pomesh’ik owned.
e) In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.
f) And let’s not forget about the indirect question.

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

I don’t know specific numbers. He was helped by cousins and his children. Hired labor came later, after he was able to purchase more land.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more. How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

And when did he purchase that land – during the Soviet Rule? I.e. – illegally?

It depends on how one defines “exploiter.” If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before – normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people’s land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed.

Economic exploitation (according to Marx) is exactly what you just described – the capitalization over other peoples suffering and worse economic condition with the aim of enriching yourself (i.e. “appropriation of another person’s results of labor either without paying for it, or on the provision of return of goods (services, money), the value of which is less than the value created by the labor of the man during his working time”). Why did these people have to sold their labor to someone else and not work their own land? After the revolution and the expropriation of the nobles lands peasant mir got it all – but not individuals within the peasant community. And it was mir who decided how much land should go to anyone.

Stalin could not “steal” their land – because private land ownership was outlawed before him. See “Decree on the Land”, right after the October Revolution.

OTOH it was a fact that this law was violated on massive scale by the kulaks and their henchmen – podkulachniki – who extorted (often with the use of violence) the land from the whole of the peasant community, shrinking the amount of it and causing the pauperization of their fellow villagers who had to become a landless batraks, exploited by kulaks.

Yes. Under Stalin the tax rate was raised to some ridiculous, unpayable amount. Since he couldn’t pay it, all the land was confiscated. The house was razed.

Because he was kulak? And this was part of the policy to eliminate kulaks as a class? Because he, btw, violated the existing legislation?

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him.

Uh-huh. Let’s pretend that this could be even true.

They liked that he built the village’s windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled.

Did they also liked paying him money?

He also taught himself how to read and, being one of the few “literate” adults in the village would read documents or whatever to them, as needed, which further endeared him to them. When one of the sons (who was just old enough to escape and live on his own when the family were exiled) returned to the village for the first time after decades the old villagers greeted him with tears and as some sort of beloved long-lost son.

Nice anecdote.

Nope. Indeed, some of his descendants “blame” him for being politically passive during the Revolution, staying home and looking after his farm and family rather than fighting against the Bolsheviks. Perhaps if more people had struggled against the Revolution rather than being neutral, the resultant catastrophe would have been avoided.

There was no catastrophe. But, should the Whites and Intervents won – well, that WOULD be a catastrophe.

I suspect he complained to others about collectivization – why wouldn’t he? This may have constituted “active resistance.”

Probably more than complained. Anti-Soviet agitation was illegal. Harsh law? Maybe. But the law nonetheless.

I’m sure there were legal excuses for culling the best and brightest of the population, in many fields. Educated competent engineers were blamed for problems with industrialization and liquidated as wreckers, for example.

What – all of them? All 100%? Again – stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!
b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?
c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?
d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

b) "Free market" was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.
c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like - and implementing those ideas.
d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!
a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.

I was talking about post 1905 but nice try.

c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren't that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

"Overall, in 1912, peasants per capita paid 8.7 times less in direct taxes than the urban population (see Table 5.37)."

Of course there were many "indirect" taxes paid by peasants - such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn't affect someone who chose not to drink much..

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin's reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin's rule. The period of the Revolution didn't involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn't want to steal from him. "Kulak extortionist" seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn't know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

b) "Free market" was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like - and implementing those ideas.d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor (such as spendng their windfall on a zapoi). Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.

I was talking about post 1905 but nice try.

c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren't that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

"Overall, in 1912, peasants per capita paid 8.7 times less in direct taxes than the urban population."

Of course there were many "indirect" taxes paid by peasants - such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn't affect someone who chose not to drink much..

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin's reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin's rule. The period of the Revolution didn't involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn't want to steal from him. "Kulak extortionist" seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn't know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

I don't know the details and the timeline. I know he and his family worked hard, saved what they made from the surplus, and invested their savings in a windmill and additional land (not sure which order) that in turn generated more capital. More land meant they could hire farmhands to work the land. No theft, exploitation (in a normal, not Marxist sense), extortion etc. involved. Just hard work, patience, and some brains.

" If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before – normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people’s land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed."

Economic exploitation (according to Marx) is exactly what you just described

And this kind of thinking is what derailed the lands of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.

Why did these people have to sold their labor to someone else and not work their own land?

I don't know the laborers' back stories. Perhaps they lost their land due to some personal failures, or parental failures.

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him.

Uh-huh. Let’s pretend that this could be even true.

The guy who probably has no actual connection to villages thinks what he read in his Sovok propaganda publiciations is reality.

They liked that he built the village’s windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled.

Did they also liked paying him money?

In the same way that I like paying money for groceries from a store near my house and am happy I don't have to drive 20 minutes to a grocery store. I am not "exploited" by the guy charging me for groceries and don't expect to get them for free.

stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

You don't believe that intelligence has a genetic component and that successful people, in general, tend to be smarter than less successful ones?

Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire.

"What – all of them? All 100%? Again – stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?"

Reading previous comments I had wondered about your obsessive hatred for a race.
Now that particular excerpt makes it clear. Like they say, envy is a feeling usually based on real grounds.

38-43% according to some estimates (not concrete data) – and only in European part of the Empire. With huge differences between Baltic gubernias (70-78% in some parts) vs the rest of Russia’s proper, and men vs women.

1) Men *always* lead women in literacy rates during development. I have yet to see a single counterexample.

2) The Protestant areas of the Baltics, to be precise. I.e., a result of preexisting religious/cultural traditions.

Re-80%: “were or had been in school.” The 1911 School Census showed 45% of children were in school, rising to 51% in 1914 (58% in European Russia). However, during this period the average period of schooling was short, so a large percentage of the 100%-51%=49% figure would already be either out of school or preparing to enter it. There are no systemic statistics for this, but local data such as from Moscow province (not city) in the 1890s (!) show that 90% of all children were currently enrolled, already schooled, or not yet enrolled.

Although the schooling period was short if expanding, it must have been adequate at instilling basic literacy; by 1914, the literacy rate for army recruits was verging on 70%. {Source: National Literacy Campaigns edited by Robert Arnove and Harvey Graff}.

Incidentally, it took the Soviet Union until 1927 to get back to prewar school enrollment rates.

What – all of them? All 100%? Again – stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

I think Freud was at least as bad as Lysenko. Freudianism was just as wrong, lasted much longer, and Freudians "treated" millions of people. That must have done a lot of damage.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin's fallacy, Steven Jay Gould's fraud. I could probably remember others if I thought about it longer. A while ago while at a Barnes & Noble I noticed that S.J. Gould had more books in the science section than any other author. He was caught cheating. MTV didn't play Milli Vanilli after they were caught lip-synching, but Barnes & Noble is unfazed about S. J. Gould.

Re-80%: “were or had been in school.” The 1911 School Census showed 45% of children were in school, rising to 51% in 1914 (58% in European Russia). However, during this period the average period of schooling was short, so a large percentage of the 100%-51%=49% figure would already be either out of school or preparing to enter it. There are no systemic statistics for this, but local data such as from Moscow province (not city) in the 1890s (!) show that 90% of all children were currently enrolled, already schooled, or not yet enrolled.

Just wha… How can you possibly extrapolate one figure to the whole of Russia is beyond me. Ballsy move, sure. But totally groundless, I’m afraid.

You also conveniently ignore that the statistic from the 1911 report covers only kids aged 8-12 and talks about primarily schools. A lot of worker class families could afford for themselves just that – after which kids (guided by Holy Invisible Hand of the Market (tm)) had to find a job. The phenomenon of half-literate or, in fact, illiterate people due to fact that after a short stint in the school their reading/writing capability simply atrophied due to lack of use is both documented and was ubiquitous.

Why you are just handwaving the lack of women literacy is also – “oh-so-convenient”! Bloody commies – teaching babas how to read!

Although the schooling period was short if expanding, it must have been adequate at instilling basic literacy; by 1914, the literacy rate for army recruits was verging on 70%. {Source: National Literacy Campaigns edited by Robert Arnove and Harvey Graff}.

Ah, yes! I KNEW you will cite this figure!

Let’s start with the G. Buschnell’s estimate that only 25-30% of the draft-age men (and you said it already that men had more chances to receive education) were indeed drafted. Next – the criterion of literacy. In that case it was simply the ability to write down you own last name. Even according to this very lax definition more than 25% of the new recruits were completely illiterate.

If we check the ‘Military-statistical Army almanac of 1912’ than the number of fully literate (not counting “semi-literate”) was only 47.41%. Later, after several years of war and more and more successive drafts the level of complete illiteracy reached 61%. This is much more representative of the general state of the education within Russian Empire, than some wild extrapolations.

Incidentally, it took the Soviet Union until 1927 to get back to prewar school enrollment rates.

Yeah, it’s as if they hadn’t rebuild the country after the Great War, 2 Revolutions, Interventions, Civil War, revolts, international blockade… Or, wait!

Traitorous filth, how dare they choose emigration over the joys of working from home (in a gulag).

My-my! And this is the Great AKarlin, the Winged Horror of Russia Watchers-sphere! Resorting to strawmanning – how quaint!

I never called them “traitorous filth” – so don’t put words in my mouth. Yes, they emigrated – losing any claim to be called “Russian scientists” due to that. “Russia-born”, sure. But no longer Russia.

And some of the scientists didn’t run away, tail behind their legs. Some émigrés, in fact, returned back to contribute to their countries future. Completely alien and illogical behavior for some, especially for those who thinks that freedom equals to 300 distinct brands of sausage sold at your grocery store.

Another strawman is trying to portray that sharashkas were the only option for scientists to conduct their research in the Soviet Union. Were those like Tupolev and Korolev “employed” by the state while serving their prison term? Yeah, sure. Were _some_ of them innocent? Yes, some were. Still, trying to focus on bad stuff instead and totally ignoring all positive is more befitting liberast and Brighton Beach kvetching team.

Oh, and correct term is GULag – Glavnoye Upravleniye LAGerey. It wasn’t a “place” or “prison”. I thought you knew that.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

No, I don’t. But I suppose you are not arguing with me, but with a strawman, that exists only in your imagination.

38-43% according to some estimates (not concrete data) – and only in European part of the Empire. With huge differences between Baltic gubernias (70-78% in some parts) vs the rest of Russia’s proper, and men vs women.

1) Men *always* lead women in literacy rates during development. I have yet to see a single counterexample.

2) The Protestant areas of the Baltics, to be precise. I.e., a result of preexisting religious/cultural traditions.

Re-80%: "were or had been in school." The 1911 School Census showed 45% of children were in school, rising to 51% in 1914 (58% in European Russia). However, during this period the average period of schooling was short, so a large percentage of the 100%-51%=49% figure would already be either out of school or preparing to enter it. There are no systemic statistics for this, but local data such as from Moscow province (not city) in the 1890s (!) show that 90% of all children were currently enrolled, already schooled, or not yet enrolled.

Although the schooling period was short if expanding, it must have been adequate at instilling basic literacy; by 1914, the literacy rate for army recruits was verging on 70%. {Source: National Literacy Campaigns edited by Robert Arnove and Harvey Graff}.

Incidentally, it took the Soviet Union until 1927 to get back to prewar school enrollment rates.

What – all of them? All 100%? Again – stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

I think Freud was at least as bad as Lysenko. Freudianism was just as wrong, lasted much longer, and Freudians “treated” millions of people. That must have done a lot of damage.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin’s fallacy, Steven Jay Gould’s fraud. I could probably remember others if I thought about it longer. A while ago while at a Barnes & Noble I noticed that S.J. Gould had more books in the science section than any other author. He was caught cheating. MTV didn’t play Milli Vanilli after they were caught lip-synching, but Barnes & Noble is unfazed about S. J. Gould.

Doubt it. I mean I haven't read him not am I much interested in him and so far as I'm aware most of this theories have either discredited or surpassed but ultimately I don't buy that its possible for someone to be the third most eminent psychologist of the 20th century (via Human Accomplishment-like quantification) while being a total quack.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin’s fallacy, Steven Jay Gould’s fraud.

Possibly by the 1970s-80s. (That said, there was a good reason why throughout the Soviet period all the very brightest and most conscientious people tended to go into the hard sciences, especially math and physics, where ideology is nigh impossible). Also while I agree Gould is pretty much a fraud through and through, Lewontin has done a lot of genuine work. Not only is Lysenko a complete fraud, but his actions actually destroyed (in the most literal sense of the word) dozens of lives.

Gould lied, or showed an extraordinary ability for self-deception, about the work of a long-dead scholar. That doesn't mean his own work was fraudulent. Scientists write all sorts of rubbish in pop science books, usually wilfully careless rather than deliberately misleading, but the effect may be the same.

I haven't read him, but from what I understand, Freud did not conduct experiments. I don't think he was even in the science business. He wrote about single cases he had dealt with. And everything he's famous for - the oedipal complex, penis envy, the oral/anal/etc. stuff - sounds like nonsense to me.

And psychology is certainly an area where experiments CAN be conducted and data can be gathered. And lots of people do that now. I've seen it claimed that for a long time Freud's nonsense took the oxygen (funding, interest) from the more scientific areas of psychology, retarding them by decades.

The most famous living linguist is Chomsky. Lots and lots of linguists think he's a fraud. Even though I'm a big glossophiliac, I've never read anything by Chomsky. How come? It's boring. I'm interested in two things: learning to read in foreign languages and reading about the history of languages, their genealogy and relationships with each other. He has nothing to say about that at all. In fact, he's a monoglot.

He claims to have discovered a universal grammar, a set of general rules that apply to all languages. Some people who've looked at it say that it bears an uncanny resemblance to the grammar of English, the only language Chomsky really speaks. They say that he deals with languages that differ from English greatly the way that medieval astronomers dealt with the challenges presented by the geocentric model. They drew epicycles and he made up complex exceptions to his "universal" grammar. The more different a language is from English, the more exceptions.

You WOULD expect a monoglot to underestimate the extent of differences between languages, to overestimate how normal and representative his own language is and to start making up complex excuses once contrary evidence is presented to him. This sounds comical, but so does race denialism, Marxism, libertarianism and lots of other things that have become popular over the years with very smart people.

Chomsky's kind of linguistics has taken a lot of funding away from real linguistics, the kind that gathers data, tries to establish connections between languages, tries to decipher undeciphered texts.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

I think Freud was at least as bad as Lysenko. Freudianism was just as wrong, lasted much longer, and Freudians "treated" millions of people. That must have done a lot of damage.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin's fallacy, Steven Jay Gould's fraud. I could probably remember others if I thought about it longer. A while ago while at a Barnes & Noble I noticed that S.J. Gould had more books in the science section than any other author. He was caught cheating. MTV didn't play Milli Vanilli after they were caught lip-synching, but Barnes & Noble is unfazed about S. J. Gould.

I think Freud was at least as bad as Lysenko.

Doubt it. I mean I haven’t read him not am I much interested in him and so far as I’m aware most of this theories have either discredited or surpassed but ultimately I don’t buy that its possible for someone to be the third most eminent psychologist of the 20th century (via Human Accomplishment-like quantification) while being a total quack.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin’s fallacy, Steven Jay Gould’s fraud.

Possibly by the 1970s-80s. (That said, there was a good reason why throughout the Soviet period all the very brightest and most conscientious people tended to go into the hard sciences, especially math and physics, where ideology is nigh impossible). Also while I agree Gould is pretty much a fraud through and through, Lewontin has done a lot of genuine work. Not only is Lysenko a complete fraud, but his actions actually destroyed (in the most literal sense of the word) dozens of lives.

Well, Gould is going to be a pretty eminent palaeontologist of the 20th century by any such silly Charles Murray-esque "quantification"! So which AK is right, the lover of quantification, or the hater of Gould?

I'm not Russian and probably not very insightful about its history, butas I see it, Stalin did certainly make a lot of terrible decisions, which have proven very costly for the Russian people, but in the end he managed to be a corrective for the early Bolshevisks around Lenin and Trotsky, who I think were worse, being a) worse in ideology, b) very capable of violence and c) were known to have casually sold the country down the river (Brest-Litovsk).

So if we compare him against potential alternatives, the people who could have seized power in his place after Lenin's death, my feeling is he was the "lesser evil" and that's to his credit. But perhaps someone can show me what would have been a better trajectory for Russia at this juncture (who, how, realistically?)

well, Stalin was not free in choosing what to do. He became a leader of the revolutionary nation which already had certain ideology imposed on her. He acted in the framework of that ideology and had to achieve the goals that the ideology set up for the nation, i.e. modernization, industrialization, cultural revolution, strenghtening the defense capability. The tasks and the goals were of tremendouse scale. It took a lot of violence to unite the nation and to suppress dissent, obstructionism and sabotage among the ideological rivals and predominantly rural, politically uneducated population. His personal features did influensed the way how he acted, but the “what to do” came from the nature of the revolution, the accepted ideology, the state of the nation and the readiness of the population to accept the changes.

38-43% according to some estimates (not concrete data) – and only in European part of the Empire. With huge differences between Baltic gubernias (70-78% in some parts) vs the rest of Russia’s proper, and men vs women.

1) Men *always* lead women in literacy rates during development. I have yet to see a single counterexample.

2) The Protestant areas of the Baltics, to be precise. I.e., a result of preexisting religious/cultural traditions.

Re-80%: "were or had been in school." The 1911 School Census showed 45% of children were in school, rising to 51% in 1914 (58% in European Russia). However, during this period the average period of schooling was short, so a large percentage of the 100%-51%=49% figure would already be either out of school or preparing to enter it. There are no systemic statistics for this, but local data such as from Moscow province (not city) in the 1890s (!) show that 90% of all children were currently enrolled, already schooled, or not yet enrolled.

Although the schooling period was short if expanding, it must have been adequate at instilling basic literacy; by 1914, the literacy rate for army recruits was verging on 70%. {Source: National Literacy Campaigns edited by Robert Arnove and Harvey Graff}.

Incidentally, it took the Soviet Union until 1927 to get back to prewar school enrollment rates.

What – all of them? All 100%? Again – stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

Re-80%: “were or had been in school.” The 1911 School Census showed 45% of children were in school, rising to 51% in 1914 (58% in European Russia). However, during this period the average period of schooling was short, so a large percentage of the 100%-51%=49% figure would already be either out of school or preparing to enter it. There are no systemic statistics for this, but local data such as from Moscow province (not city) in the 1890s (!) show that 90% of all children were currently enrolled, already schooled, or not yet enrolled.

Just wha… How can you possibly extrapolate one figure to the whole of Russia is beyond me. Ballsy move, sure. But totally groundless, I’m afraid.

You also conveniently ignore that the statistic from the 1911 report covers only kids aged 8-12 and talks about primarily schools. A lot of worker class families could afford for themselves just that – after which kids (guided by Holy Invisible Hand of the Market ™) had to find a job. The phenomenon of half-literate or, in fact, illiterate people due to fact that after a short stint in the school their reading/writing capability simply atrophied due to lack of use is both documented and was ubiquitous.

Why you are just handwaving the lack of women literacy is also – “oh-so-convenient”! Bloody commies – teaching babas how to read!

Although the schooling period was short if expanding, it must have been adequate at instilling basic literacy; by 1914, the literacy rate for army recruits was verging on 70%. {Source: National Literacy Campaigns edited by Robert Arnove and Harvey Graff}.

Ah, yes! I KNEW you will cite this figure!

Let’s start with the G. Buschnell’s estimate that only 25-30% of the draft-age men (and you said it already that men had more chances to receive education) were indeed drafted. Next – the criterion of literacy. In that case it was simply the ability to write down you own last name. Even according to this very lax definition more than 25% of the new recruits were completely illiterate.

If we check the ‘Military-statistical Army almanac of 1912’ than the number of fully literate (not counting “semi-literate”) was only 47.41%. Later, after several years of war and more and more successive drafts the level of complete illiteracy reached 61%. This is much more representative of the general state of the education within Russian Empire, than some wild extrapolations.

Incidentally, it took the Soviet Union until 1927 to get back to prewar school enrollment rates.

Yeah, it’s as if they hadn’t rebuild the country after the Great War, 2 Revolutions, Interventions, Civil War, revolts, international blockade… Or, wait!

Traitorous filth, how dare they choose emigration over the joys of working from home (in a gulag).

My-my! And this is the Great AKarlin, the Winged Horror of Russia Watchers-sphere! Resorting to strawmanning – how quaint!

I never called them “traitorous filth” – so don’t put words in my mouth. Yes, they emigrated – losing any claim to be called “Russian scientists” due to that. “Russia-born”, sure. But no longer Russia.

And some of the scientists didn’t run away, tail behind their legs. Some émigrés, in fact, returned back to contribute to their countries future. Completely alien and illogical behavior for some, especially for those who thinks that freedom equals to 300 distinct brands of sausage sold at your grocery store.

Another strawman is trying to portray that sharashkas were the only option for scientists to conduct their research in the Soviet Union. Were those like Tupolev and Korolev “employed” by the state while serving their prison term? Yeah, sure. Were _some_ of them innocent? Yes, some were. Still, trying to focus on bad stuff instead and totally ignoring all positive is more befitting liberast and Brighton Beach kvetching team.

Oh, and correct term is GULag – Glavnoye Upravleniye LAGerey. It wasn’t a “place” or “prison”. I thought you knew that.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

No, I don’t. But I suppose you are not arguing with me, but with a strawman, that exists only in your imagination.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

I think Freud was at least as bad as Lysenko. Freudianism was just as wrong, lasted much longer, and Freudians "treated" millions of people. That must have done a lot of damage.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin's fallacy, Steven Jay Gould's fraud. I could probably remember others if I thought about it longer. A while ago while at a Barnes & Noble I noticed that S.J. Gould had more books in the science section than any other author. He was caught cheating. MTV didn't play Milli Vanilli after they were caught lip-synching, but Barnes & Noble is unfazed about S. J. Gould.

I think Freud was at least as bad as Lysenko. Freudianism was just as wrong, lasted much longer, and Freudians “treated” millions of people. That must have done a lot of damage.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

I think Freud was at least as bad as Lysenko. Freudianism was just as wrong, lasted much longer, and Freudians "treated" millions of people. That must have done a lot of damage.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin's fallacy, Steven Jay Gould's fraud. I could probably remember others if I thought about it longer. A while ago while at a Barnes & Noble I noticed that S.J. Gould had more books in the science section than any other author. He was caught cheating. MTV didn't play Milli Vanilli after they were caught lip-synching, but Barnes & Noble is unfazed about S. J. Gould.

Gould lied, or showed an extraordinary ability for self-deception, about the work of a long-dead scholar. That doesn’t mean his own work was fraudulent. Scientists write all sorts of rubbish in pop science books, usually wilfully careless rather than deliberately misleading, but the effect may be the same.

Robert Trivers in a chapter of his book reprinted on this website was skeptical about Gould's scientific contributions in general:

Many of us theoretical biologists who knew Stephen personally thought he was something of an intellectual fraud precisely because he had a talent for coining terms that promised more than they could deliver, while claiming exactly the opposite. One example was the notion of “punctuated equilibria”—which simply asserted that rates of (morphological) evolution were not constant, but varied over time, often with periods of long stasis interspersed with periods of rapid change. All of this was well known from the time of Darwin. The classic example were bats. They apparently evolved very quickly from small non-flying mammals (in perhaps less than 20 million years) but then stayed relatively unchanged once they reached the bat phenotype we are all familiar with today (about 50 million years ago). Nothing very surprising here, intermediate forms were apt to be neither very good classic mammals, nor good flying ones either, so natural selection pushed them rapidly through the relevant evolutionary space.

But Steve wanted to turn this into something grander, a justification for replacing natural selection (favoring individual reproductive success) with something called species selection. Since one could easily imagine that there was rapid turnover of species during periods of intense selection and morphological change, one might expect species selection to be more intense, while during the rest of the equilibrium stabilizing selection would rule throughout. But rate of species turnover has nothing to do with the traits within species—only with the relative frequency of species showing these traits. As would prove usual, Steve missed the larger interesting science by embracing a self-serving fantasy. Species selection today is a small but interesting topic in evolutionary theory, not some grand principle emerging from paleontological patterns.

Gould lied, or showed an extraordinary ability for self-deception, about the work of a long-dead scholar. That doesn't mean his own work was fraudulent. Scientists write all sorts of rubbish in pop science books, usually wilfully careless rather than deliberately misleading, but the effect may be the same.

Robert Trivers in a chapter of his book reprinted on this website was skeptical about Gould’s scientific contributions in general:

Many of us theoretical biologists who knew Stephen personally thought he was something of an intellectual fraud precisely because he had a talent for coining terms that promised more than they could deliver, while claiming exactly the opposite. One example was the notion of “punctuated equilibria”—which simply asserted that rates of (morphological) evolution were not constant, but varied over time, often with periods of long stasis interspersed with periods of rapid change. All of this was well known from the time of Darwin. The classic example were bats. They apparently evolved very quickly from small non-flying mammals (in perhaps less than 20 million years) but then stayed relatively unchanged once they reached the bat phenotype we are all familiar with today (about 50 million years ago). Nothing very surprising here, intermediate forms were apt to be neither very good classic mammals, nor good flying ones either, so natural selection pushed them rapidly through the relevant evolutionary space.

But Steve wanted to turn this into something grander, a justification for replacing natural selection (favoring individual reproductive success) with something called species selection. Since one could easily imagine that there was rapid turnover of species during periods of intense selection and morphological change, one might expect species selection to be more intense, while during the rest of the equilibrium stabilizing selection would rule throughout. But rate of species turnover has nothing to do with the traits within species—only with the relative frequency of species showing these traits. As would prove usual, Steve missed the larger interesting science by embracing a self-serving fantasy. Species selection today is a small but interesting topic in evolutionary theory, not some grand principle emerging from paleontological patterns.

Nonsense. It meant in this man’s case working the fields even on Sunday, not drinking, and saving extra money. Some people are more hard-working, future oriented and clever than others. Such people tend to be more successful than those who do not have these traits. There is nothing “magical” about acquiring a little bit of capital, under free-market conditions. Perhaps if you had lived in a Western country you would understand this.

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!
b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?
c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?
d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

The tax rate during the time of the Russian Empire was very modest. Indeed, the times of the late Russian Empire were rather good for peasants. The only contact with the government consisted of a once-yearly visit from the taxman. NEP was also fairly hands-off from the government.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!
a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.
b) Peasants had to pay land taxes, direct taxes, “zemskiy sbor”, pay for leasing land from the nobles – with their bread. Oftentimes, the government decided to hike a particular taxes (free market for the win!) to get its hands on more of peasants bread which was meant to be exported abroad.
c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%.
d) Peasant land was taxed twice more than the pomesh’ik owned.
e) In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.
f) And let’s not forget about the indirect question.

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

I don’t know specific numbers. He was helped by cousins and his children. Hired labor came later, after he was able to purchase more land.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more. How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

And when did he purchase that land – during the Soviet Rule? I.e. – illegally?

It depends on how one defines “exploiter.” If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before – normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people’s land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed.

Economic exploitation (according to Marx) is exactly what you just described – the capitalization over other peoples suffering and worse economic condition with the aim of enriching yourself (i.e. “appropriation of another person’s results of labor either without paying for it, or on the provision of return of goods (services, money), the value of which is less than the value created by the labor of the man during his working time”). Why did these people have to sold their labor to someone else and not work their own land? After the revolution and the expropriation of the nobles lands peasant mir got it all – but not individuals within the peasant community. And it was mir who decided how much land should go to anyone.

Stalin could not “steal” their land – because private land ownership was outlawed before him. See “Decree on the Land”, right after the October Revolution.

OTOH it was a fact that this law was violated on massive scale by the kulaks and their henchmen – podkulachniki – who extorted (often with the use of violence) the land from the whole of the peasant community, shrinking the amount of it and causing the pauperization of their fellow villagers who had to become a landless batraks, exploited by kulaks.

Yes. Under Stalin the tax rate was raised to some ridiculous, unpayable amount. Since he couldn’t pay it, all the land was confiscated. The house was razed.

Because he was kulak? And this was part of the policy to eliminate kulaks as a class? Because he, btw, violated the existing legislation?

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him.

Uh-huh. Let’s pretend that this could be even true.

They liked that he built the village’s windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled.

Did they also liked paying him money?

He also taught himself how to read and, being one of the few “literate” adults in the village would read documents or whatever to them, as needed, which further endeared him to them. When one of the sons (who was just old enough to escape and live on his own when the family were exiled) returned to the village for the first time after decades the old villagers greeted him with tears and as some sort of beloved long-lost son.

Nice anecdote.

Nope. Indeed, some of his descendants “blame” him for being politically passive during the Revolution, staying home and looking after his farm and family rather than fighting against the Bolsheviks. Perhaps if more people had struggled against the Revolution rather than being neutral, the resultant catastrophe would have been avoided.

There was no catastrophe. But, should the Whites and Intervents won – well, that WOULD be a catastrophe.

I suspect he complained to others about collectivization – why wouldn’t he? This may have constituted “active resistance.”

Probably more than complained. Anti-Soviet agitation was illegal. Harsh law? Maybe. But the law nonetheless.

I’m sure there were legal excuses for culling the best and brightest of the population, in many fields. Educated competent engineers were blamed for problems with industrialization and liquidated as wreckers, for example.

What – all of them? All 100%? Again – stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!
b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?
c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?
d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

b) “Free market” was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.
c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like – and implementing those ideas.
d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!
a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.

I was talking about post 1905 but nice try.

c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren’t that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

“Overall, in 1912, peasants per capita paid 8.7 times less in direct taxes than the urban population (see Table 5.37).”

Of course there were many “indirect” taxes paid by peasants – such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn’t affect someone who chose not to drink much..

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin’s reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin’s rule. The period of the Revolution didn’t involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn’t want to steal from him. “Kulak extortionist” seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn’t know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

b) “Free market” was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.

"When" means - "in what year?"

c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like – and implementing those ideas.

As opposed to Ukie emigrant living in the Bastion of Freedoom and 'Mockracy, who, without resorting to such meaningless things as "facts" can judge other people as "untermenchen", while singing "Щеня вмерала...".

Also - an expert on what is "Sovok". Probably epically butthurt by it. Somehow.

d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

Oh, how sweet! :)

And you actually believe this? Sure, you do!

1913-194 per capita taxes as share of per capita income:

[snip]

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

I don't know what Mironov was smoking at the moment. His numbers are simply off. UK's was not 11.4% but 10.5%, France's not 13.8% but 11.7%. What numbers do he cite about these nations per capita income? What sources did he use?

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren’t that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

Or you can try to study something besides him? But this might harm your position, right? Like N.N. Porkovsky - "On Income taxes" (1915), A.L. Veinstein "Taxation and tithes of the peasantry in pre-war and Revolutionary period" (1924)".

Of course there were many “indirect” taxes paid by peasants – such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn’t affect someone who chose not to drink much..

But of course! This explains all! Besides the fact, that indirect taxes also covered
excises on sugar and even matches.

And the land taxes was collected twice a year (first one before June 30). How did this fine gentleman met the tax collector only once? And what kind of peasant could possibly pay up the land tax by early summer, without incurring a debt on his family?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin’s reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin’s rule. The period of the Revolution didn’t involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn’t want to steal from him. “Kulak extortionist” seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn’t know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Ah-ha. So he was a kulak, who capitalized on Stolypin's reform aimed at destruction of the peasant communities and mass pauperization. Was it under Stolypin when he built the mill? Or was the most active in expropriating ("stealing") of former noble's lands, which resulted in the sudden "windfall"?

And we must accept as an unquestionable truth that he was "liked" by the neighbors not because his podkulachniks could easily break their legs or torch down their houses, but because he was a "hard working". They also, apparently, masochistically liked to pay for his services.

As for the "kulak extortionists" - I can cite many evidences, criminal cases etc. That's been before the Revolution, this continued after it. But, of course, the much learned emigrant adepts of the RTWHL won't believe in single word of the "Sovok" documents, right?

Doubt it. I mean I haven't read him not am I much interested in him and so far as I'm aware most of this theories have either discredited or surpassed but ultimately I don't buy that its possible for someone to be the third most eminent psychologist of the 20th century (via Human Accomplishment-like quantification) while being a total quack.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin’s fallacy, Steven Jay Gould’s fraud.

Possibly by the 1970s-80s. (That said, there was a good reason why throughout the Soviet period all the very brightest and most conscientious people tended to go into the hard sciences, especially math and physics, where ideology is nigh impossible). Also while I agree Gould is pretty much a fraud through and through, Lewontin has done a lot of genuine work. Not only is Lysenko a complete fraud, but his actions actually destroyed (in the most literal sense of the word) dozens of lives.

Well, Gould is going to be a pretty eminent palaeontologist of the 20th century by any such silly Charles Murray-esque “quantification”! So which AK is right, the lover of quantification, or the hater of Gould?

Murray's data is useful, but imperfect. I don't see any obvious ways to improve his methods. It's a popularity contest among experts, and frauds like Gould sometimes win those.

Going back to Freud, it must have been always obvious that there were better methods of looking for the truth about psychology. Gather a large number of students, give them questionnaires, present them with scenarios, tabulate the responses, get a control group, refine your questions and scenarios, try this, try that in them.

I can't really do that to Murray. His method was imperfect, but how do you improve it? I don't know. And it's better than nothing.

Robert Trivers in a chapter of his book reprinted on this website was skeptical about Gould's scientific contributions in general:

Many of us theoretical biologists who knew Stephen personally thought he was something of an intellectual fraud precisely because he had a talent for coining terms that promised more than they could deliver, while claiming exactly the opposite. One example was the notion of “punctuated equilibria”—which simply asserted that rates of (morphological) evolution were not constant, but varied over time, often with periods of long stasis interspersed with periods of rapid change. All of this was well known from the time of Darwin. The classic example were bats. They apparently evolved very quickly from small non-flying mammals (in perhaps less than 20 million years) but then stayed relatively unchanged once they reached the bat phenotype we are all familiar with today (about 50 million years ago). Nothing very surprising here, intermediate forms were apt to be neither very good classic mammals, nor good flying ones either, so natural selection pushed them rapidly through the relevant evolutionary space.

But Steve wanted to turn this into something grander, a justification for replacing natural selection (favoring individual reproductive success) with something called species selection. Since one could easily imagine that there was rapid turnover of species during periods of intense selection and morphological change, one might expect species selection to be more intense, while during the rest of the equilibrium stabilizing selection would rule throughout. But rate of species turnover has nothing to do with the traits within species—only with the relative frequency of species showing these traits. As would prove usual, Steve missed the larger interesting science by embracing a self-serving fantasy. Species selection today is a small but interesting topic in evolutionary theory, not some grand principle emerging from paleontological patterns.

I’m pretty sceptical that Trivers’ own contributions were groundbreaking. In any case, I don’t see any accusation of fraud in that passage.

Re-80%: “were or had been in school.” The 1911 School Census showed 45% of children were in school, rising to 51% in 1914 (58% in European Russia). However, during this period the average period of schooling was short, so a large percentage of the 100%-51%=49% figure would already be either out of school or preparing to enter it. There are no systemic statistics for this, but local data such as from Moscow province (not city) in the 1890s (!) show that 90% of all children were currently enrolled, already schooled, or not yet enrolled.

Just wha… How can you possibly extrapolate one figure to the whole of Russia is beyond me. Ballsy move, sure. But totally groundless, I’m afraid.

You also conveniently ignore that the statistic from the 1911 report covers only kids aged 8-12 and talks about primarily schools. A lot of worker class families could afford for themselves just that – after which kids (guided by Holy Invisible Hand of the Market (tm)) had to find a job. The phenomenon of half-literate or, in fact, illiterate people due to fact that after a short stint in the school their reading/writing capability simply atrophied due to lack of use is both documented and was ubiquitous.

Why you are just handwaving the lack of women literacy is also – “oh-so-convenient”! Bloody commies – teaching babas how to read!

Although the schooling period was short if expanding, it must have been adequate at instilling basic literacy; by 1914, the literacy rate for army recruits was verging on 70%. {Source: National Literacy Campaigns edited by Robert Arnove and Harvey Graff}.

Ah, yes! I KNEW you will cite this figure!

Let’s start with the G. Buschnell’s estimate that only 25-30% of the draft-age men (and you said it already that men had more chances to receive education) were indeed drafted. Next – the criterion of literacy. In that case it was simply the ability to write down you own last name. Even according to this very lax definition more than 25% of the new recruits were completely illiterate.

If we check the ‘Military-statistical Army almanac of 1912’ than the number of fully literate (not counting “semi-literate”) was only 47.41%. Later, after several years of war and more and more successive drafts the level of complete illiteracy reached 61%. This is much more representative of the general state of the education within Russian Empire, than some wild extrapolations.

Incidentally, it took the Soviet Union until 1927 to get back to prewar school enrollment rates.

Yeah, it’s as if they hadn’t rebuild the country after the Great War, 2 Revolutions, Interventions, Civil War, revolts, international blockade… Or, wait!

Traitorous filth, how dare they choose emigration over the joys of working from home (in a gulag).

My-my! And this is the Great AKarlin, the Winged Horror of Russia Watchers-sphere! Resorting to strawmanning – how quaint!

I never called them “traitorous filth” – so don’t put words in my mouth. Yes, they emigrated – losing any claim to be called “Russian scientists” due to that. “Russia-born”, sure. But no longer Russia.

And some of the scientists didn’t run away, tail behind their legs. Some émigrés, in fact, returned back to contribute to their countries future. Completely alien and illogical behavior for some, especially for those who thinks that freedom equals to 300 distinct brands of sausage sold at your grocery store.

Another strawman is trying to portray that sharashkas were the only option for scientists to conduct their research in the Soviet Union. Were those like Tupolev and Korolev “employed” by the state while serving their prison term? Yeah, sure. Were _some_ of them innocent? Yes, some were. Still, trying to focus on bad stuff instead and totally ignoring all positive is more befitting liberast and Brighton Beach kvetching team.

Oh, and correct term is GULag – Glavnoye Upravleniye LAGerey. It wasn’t a “place” or “prison”. I thought you knew that.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

No, I don’t. But I suppose you are not arguing with me, but with a strawman, that exists only in your imagination.

Someone who babbles about “Intervents” shouldn’t have a predilection for accusing others of attacking straw men.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

I think Freud was at least as bad as Lysenko. Freudianism was just as wrong, lasted much longer, and Freudians "treated" millions of people. That must have done a lot of damage.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin's fallacy, Steven Jay Gould's fraud. I could probably remember others if I thought about it longer. A while ago while at a Barnes & Noble I noticed that S.J. Gould had more books in the science section than any other author. He was caught cheating. MTV didn't play Milli Vanilli after they were caught lip-synching, but Barnes & Noble is unfazed about S. J. Gould.

I haven’t read him, but from what I understand, Freud did not conduct experiments. I don’t think he was even in the science business. He wrote about single cases he had dealt with. And everything he’s famous for – the oedipal complex, penis envy, the oral/anal/etc. stuff – sounds like nonsense to me.

And psychology is certainly an area where experiments CAN be conducted and data can be gathered. And lots of people do that now. I’ve seen it claimed that for a long time Freud’s nonsense took the oxygen (funding, interest) from the more scientific areas of psychology, retarding them by decades.

The most famous living linguist is Chomsky. Lots and lots of linguists think he’s a fraud. Even though I’m a big glossophiliac, I’ve never read anything by Chomsky. How come? It’s boring. I’m interested in two things: learning to read in foreign languages and reading about the history of languages, their genealogy and relationships with each other. He has nothing to say about that at all. In fact, he’s a monoglot.

He claims to have discovered a universal grammar, a set of general rules that apply to all languages. Some people who’ve looked at it say that it bears an uncanny resemblance to the grammar of English, the only language Chomsky really speaks. They say that he deals with languages that differ from English greatly the way that medieval astronomers dealt with the challenges presented by the geocentric model. They drew epicycles and he made up complex exceptions to his “universal” grammar. The more different a language is from English, the more exceptions.

You WOULD expect a monoglot to underestimate the extent of differences between languages, to overestimate how normal and representative his own language is and to start making up complex excuses once contrary evidence is presented to him. This sounds comical, but so does race denialism, Marxism, libertarianism and lots of other things that have become popular over the years with very smart people.

Chomsky’s kind of linguistics has taken a lot of funding away from real linguistics, the kind that gathers data, tries to establish connections between languages, tries to decipher undeciphered texts.

Freud did not conduct experiments. I don’t think he was even in the science business. He wrote about single cases he had dealt with.

After writing this I thought "did I misremember this? Was it really this bad?". So I went searching online. This is about psychoanalysis:

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/beystehner.html

...Freud fully presented only twelve cases, but he mentioned over one hundred minor cases.

It's my impression that Freud's writing went like this: "I had a patient A who complained of such and such problems and I told him this and he told me that..." And then Freud would draw some general point from that story. And I think these numbers - 12 major cases and 100 minor ones - refer to the patients with whom he worked out psychoanalysis.

Obviously this is not science. These are stories he told about some patients he'd seen.

I've never read any life advice books - Tony Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Dale Carnegie, Rich Dad, Poor Dad - I only know that stuff from advertising. But I would imagine their methodology to be similar. "I knew a troubled young woman who had such and such problems" and so on.

Obviously the Chicken Soup for the Soul books can't possibly be as crazy as the Oedipal complex and penis envy. This is probably like the difference between Harlequin novels and po-mo trash like that Pynchon novel I recently reviewed on my little blog. Freud was probably perverse on purpose and Tony Robbins is probably just stupid. But neither is a plausible source of truth.

"And everything he’s famous for – the oedipal complex, penis envy, the oral/anal/etc. stuff – sounds like nonsense to me." Freud was what Vladimir Nabokov called him, "the Viennese Fraud." One example: his equating feces with money, which of course struck Keynes as brilliant.

It had a negligible effect on the course of the war. Sure, the Whites got some surplus French stores that would otherwise have rusted peacefully away in their depots, but other help was lacking. Consult the Allied casualty lists. Some, such as Churchill, would have liked to provide more assistance, but they were easily defeated in the House of Commons. Thanks, Sir Oswald Mosley! As for the US, they were only in Siberia to keep an eye on the Japanese.

Nonsense. It meant in this man’s case working the fields even on Sunday, not drinking, and saving extra money. Some people are more hard-working, future oriented and clever than others. Such people tend to be more successful than those who do not have these traits. There is nothing “magical” about acquiring a little bit of capital, under free-market conditions. Perhaps if you had lived in a Western country you would understand this.

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!
b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?
c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?
d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

The tax rate during the time of the Russian Empire was very modest. Indeed, the times of the late Russian Empire were rather good for peasants. The only contact with the government consisted of a once-yearly visit from the taxman. NEP was also fairly hands-off from the government.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!
a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.
b) Peasants had to pay land taxes, direct taxes, “zemskiy sbor”, pay for leasing land from the nobles – with their bread. Oftentimes, the government decided to hike a particular taxes (free market for the win!) to get its hands on more of peasants bread which was meant to be exported abroad.
c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%.
d) Peasant land was taxed twice more than the pomesh’ik owned.
e) In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.
f) And let’s not forget about the indirect question.

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

I don’t know specific numbers. He was helped by cousins and his children. Hired labor came later, after he was able to purchase more land.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more. How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

And when did he purchase that land – during the Soviet Rule? I.e. – illegally?

It depends on how one defines “exploiter.” If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before – normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people’s land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed.

Economic exploitation (according to Marx) is exactly what you just described – the capitalization over other peoples suffering and worse economic condition with the aim of enriching yourself (i.e. “appropriation of another person’s results of labor either without paying for it, or on the provision of return of goods (services, money), the value of which is less than the value created by the labor of the man during his working time”). Why did these people have to sold their labor to someone else and not work their own land? After the revolution and the expropriation of the nobles lands peasant mir got it all – but not individuals within the peasant community. And it was mir who decided how much land should go to anyone.

Stalin could not “steal” their land – because private land ownership was outlawed before him. See “Decree on the Land”, right after the October Revolution.

OTOH it was a fact that this law was violated on massive scale by the kulaks and their henchmen – podkulachniki – who extorted (often with the use of violence) the land from the whole of the peasant community, shrinking the amount of it and causing the pauperization of their fellow villagers who had to become a landless batraks, exploited by kulaks.

Yes. Under Stalin the tax rate was raised to some ridiculous, unpayable amount. Since he couldn’t pay it, all the land was confiscated. The house was razed.

Because he was kulak? And this was part of the policy to eliminate kulaks as a class? Because he, btw, violated the existing legislation?

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him.

Uh-huh. Let’s pretend that this could be even true.

They liked that he built the village’s windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled.

Did they also liked paying him money?

He also taught himself how to read and, being one of the few “literate” adults in the village would read documents or whatever to them, as needed, which further endeared him to them. When one of the sons (who was just old enough to escape and live on his own when the family were exiled) returned to the village for the first time after decades the old villagers greeted him with tears and as some sort of beloved long-lost son.

Nice anecdote.

Nope. Indeed, some of his descendants “blame” him for being politically passive during the Revolution, staying home and looking after his farm and family rather than fighting against the Bolsheviks. Perhaps if more people had struggled against the Revolution rather than being neutral, the resultant catastrophe would have been avoided.

There was no catastrophe. But, should the Whites and Intervents won – well, that WOULD be a catastrophe.

I suspect he complained to others about collectivization – why wouldn’t he? This may have constituted “active resistance.”

Probably more than complained. Anti-Soviet agitation was illegal. Harsh law? Maybe. But the law nonetheless.

I’m sure there were legal excuses for culling the best and brightest of the population, in many fields. Educated competent engineers were blamed for problems with industrialization and liquidated as wreckers, for example.

What – all of them? All 100%? Again – stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!
b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?
c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?
d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

b) “Free market” was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.
c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like – and implementing those ideas.
d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor (such as spendng their windfall on a zapoi). Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!
a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.

I was talking about post 1905 but nice try.

c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren’t that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

“Overall, in 1912, peasants per capita paid 8.7 times less in direct taxes than the urban population.”

Of course there were many “indirect” taxes paid by peasants – such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn’t affect someone who chose not to drink much..

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin’s reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin’s rule. The period of the Revolution didn’t involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn’t want to steal from him. “Kulak extortionist” seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn’t know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

I don’t know the details and the timeline. I know he and his family worked hard, saved what they made from the surplus, and invested their savings in a windmill and additional land (not sure which order) that in turn generated more capital. More land meant they could hire farmhands to work the land. No theft, exploitation (in a normal, not Marxist sense), extortion etc. involved. Just hard work, patience, and some brains.

” If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before – normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people’s land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed.”

Economic exploitation (according to Marx) is exactly what you just described

And this kind of thinking is what derailed the lands of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.

Why did these people have to sold their labor to someone else and not work their own land?

I don’t know the laborers’ back stories. Perhaps they lost their land due to some personal failures, or parental failures.

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him.

Uh-huh. Let’s pretend that this could be even true.

The guy who probably has no actual connection to villages thinks what he read in his Sovok propaganda publiciations is reality.

They liked that he built the village’s windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled.

Did they also liked paying him money?

In the same way that I like paying money for groceries from a store near my house and am happy I don’t have to drive 20 minutes to a grocery store. I am not “exploited” by the guy charging me for groceries and don’t expect to get them for free.

stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

You don’t believe that intelligence has a genetic component and that successful people, in general, tend to be smarter than less successful ones?

Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

When - during the Hetmanate? Petyura? Whites?

Again - have you read the text of the "Decree on the Land"? The private ownership of the land in USSR has been eliminated. It also prohibited the use of hired labor. If that fellow somehow added more land to his personal nadel during the NEP he was violatin the law. If he was still using batrak labor - he was violating the law. His legislative nihilism is not an excuse.

I don’t know the details and the timeline. I know he and his family worked hard, saved what they made from the surplus, and invested their savings in a windmill and additional land (not sure which order) that in turn generated more capital. More land meant they could hire farmhands to work the land. No theft, exploitation (in a normal, not Marxist sense), extortion etc. involved. Just hard work, patience, and some brains.

Beating up money from your fellow villagers, coming up with a plan to, against all odds, get that surplus in the first place AND continue to flaunt the existing legislation even during the Soviet rule - sure lot of work, patience and some cohones. Not brains though - he was a fool if he thought that in the Land of Soviets he would be allowed to continue his basically capitalist enterprise forever without consequences.

And this kind of thinking is what derailed the lands of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.

No - a dipshit on the throne and nearly totally worthless ruling class first derailed, and then buried the Russian Empire, including a lot of people responsible.

I don’t know the laborers’ back stories. Perhaps they lost their land due to some personal failures, or parental failures.

Tsk - what a loss! Don't like them, people of lover classes, do you, AP? They simply could not. The mir was in charge of allocating the communal land. It should have provided them with the land. And the lack of personal land was not a bug, but a feature.

The guy who probably has no actual connection to villages thinks what he read in his Sovok propaganda publiciations is reality.

I suggest you should assume less and stop smoking strawmen.

In the same way that I like paying money for groceries from a store near my house and am happy I don’t have to drive 20 minutes to a grocery store. I am not “exploited” by the guy charging me for groceries and don’t expect to get them for free.

The thing here though - this analogy don't work for the village as it was at that time.

You don’t believe that intelligence has a genetic component and that successful people, in general, tend to be smarter than less successful ones?

Indeed, I do. Less scrupulous - sure. Not smarter.

Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire.

What a charming view - and in total agreement with (Neo)Nazi propaganda to boot!

No, the Soviet Power only stepped up against the excesses of unchecked capitalist social Darwinism, when a tiny group a self-proclaimed betters instead of working for the common good would rather see their fellow villagers poor and starving, and becoming employed by their former fellow peasant. And because said fine fellow would think first of all about his own enrichment there is absolutely no chance that he'd pay absolutely fair wage, because thus he won't be able to accumulate surplus income for himself.

Well, Gould is going to be a pretty eminent palaeontologist of the 20th century by any such silly Charles Murray-esque "quantification"! So which AK is right, the lover of quantification, or the hater of Gould?

Murray’s data is useful, but imperfect. I don’t see any obvious ways to improve his methods. It’s a popularity contest among experts, and frauds like Gould sometimes win those.

Going back to Freud, it must have been always obvious that there were better methods of looking for the truth about psychology. Gather a large number of students, give them questionnaires, present them with scenarios, tabulate the responses, get a control group, refine your questions and scenarios, try this, try that in them.

I can’t really do that to Murray. His method was imperfect, but how do you improve it? I don’t know. And it’s better than nothing.

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!
b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?
c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?
d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

b) "Free market" was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.
c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like - and implementing those ideas.
d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!
a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.

I was talking about post 1905 but nice try.

c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren't that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

"Overall, in 1912, peasants per capita paid 8.7 times less in direct taxes than the urban population (see Table 5.37)."

Of course there were many "indirect" taxes paid by peasants - such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn't affect someone who chose not to drink much..

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin's reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin's rule. The period of the Revolution didn't involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn't want to steal from him. "Kulak extortionist" seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn't know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

b) “Free market” was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.

“When” means – “in what year?”

c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like – and implementing those ideas.

As opposed to Ukie emigrant living in the Bastion of Freedoom and ‘Mockracy, who, without resorting to such meaningless things as “facts” can judge other people as “untermenchen”, while singing “Щеня вмерала…“.

Also – an expert on what is “Sovok”. Probably epically butthurt by it. Somehow.

d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

Oh, how sweet!

And you actually believe this? Sure, you do!

1913-194 per capita taxes as share of per capita income:

[snip]

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

I don’t know what Mironov was smoking at the moment. His numbers are simply off. UK’s was not 11.4% but 10.5%, France’s not 13.8% but 11.7%. What numbers do he cite about these nations per capita income? What sources did he use?

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren’t that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

Or you can try to study something besides him? But this might harm your position, right? Like N.N. Porkovsky – “On Income taxes” (1915), A.L. Veinstein “Taxation and tithes of the peasantry in pre-war and Revolutionary period” (1924)”.

Of course there were many “indirect” taxes paid by peasants – such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn’t affect someone who chose not to drink much..

But of course! This explains all! Besides the fact, that indirect taxes also covered
excises on sugar and even matches.

And the land taxes was collected twice a year (first one before June 30). How did this fine gentleman met the tax collector only once? And what kind of peasant could possibly pay up the land tax by early summer, without incurring a debt on his family?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin’s reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin’s rule. The period of the Revolution didn’t involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn’t want to steal from him. “Kulak extortionist” seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn’t know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Ah-ha. So he was a kulak, who capitalized on Stolypin’s reform aimed at destruction of the peasant communities and mass pauperization. Was it under Stolypin when he built the mill? Or was the most active in expropriating (“stealing”) of former noble’s lands, which resulted in the sudden “windfall”?

And we must accept as an unquestionable truth that he was “liked” by the neighbors not because his podkulachniks could easily break their legs or torch down their houses, but because he was a “hard working”. They also, apparently, masochistically liked to pay for his services.

As for the “kulak extortionists” – I can cite many evidences, criminal cases etc. That’s been before the Revolution, this continued after it. But, of course, the much learned emigrant adepts of the RTWHL won’t believe in single word of the “Sovok” documents, right?

d) "Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways."

Oh, how sweet! :)

And you actually believe this? Sure, you do!

So you do not believe that, in general and under free conditions, people who work harder get more, those who are more future-oriented are likely to save more, and those who are more clever are more likely to use their money in more effective ways?

Nice to know how a Sovok mind works. :)

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

I don’t know what Mironov was smoking at the moment. His numbers are simply off. UK’s was not 11.4% but 10.5%, France’s not 13.8% but 11.7%. What numbers do he cite about these nations per capita income? What sources did he use?

Sorry, I trust Mironov more than I do you, who inflates a Russian famine's .5 million victims to 3 million and deflates a Soviet famine from 5-7 million to 2.2 million victims.

And we must accept as an unquestionable truth that he was “liked” by the neighbors not because his podkulachniks could easily break their legs or torch down their houses, but because he was a “hard working”. They also, apparently, masochistically liked to pay for his services.

What strange stories someone taught you proles, about Kulaks breaking legs and torching down houses in the countryside.

Why do you think paying for a service is a masochistic act. When you get a haircut do you consider paying the guy for his service to be masochism because you didn't get it for free? Is this how the resentful Sovok mind works?

The Kulak got enough capital to build a windmill. This generated some extra income for him (win!). The neighbors who used this windmill, which had not existed before the kulak built, paid for its use as much as they had been paying to use another windmill, but now didn't have to travel 5 km to another village to use its windmill (win). Everybody is happy.

The Sovoks came to the village from the town, arrested and killed the kulak, stole his land and that of the other peasants. Everybody lost, to varying degrees. Village's agricultural output declined - its most productive member was eliminated.

a) Worked the fields on Sundays? What a good Christian, I say!b) When was “free market” you are talking about present – and more importantly where as in connection to that fine fellow?c) As I said – I’m Russian. If Russia doesn’t have a “free market” than what would you call it?d) On the whole, with this “hard-working, future oriented” nonsense – words, words, words. With little connection both to the present reality and the historic context.

b) "Free market" was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like - and implementing those ideas.d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor (such as spendng their windfall on a zapoi). Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

More cables from the Fantasy Land of RTWHL!a) About “modest taxes” in Russian Empire. Let’s start that all peasants after 1861 became “vremennoobyazanniye” who had to repay the state for their (and their families) freedom. By 1905 70% of peasants were still “vremennoobyazanniye”.

I was talking about post 1905 but nice try.

c) If we compare the data on taxation of Russian Empire, France, Britain and German Empire (1912), then it turns out that Russia had the lowest rate of national income per capita (83.3 rubles in Russia vs 292.3 in Germany). At the same time the ratio of tax to income in Russian Empire was 13.5% and while in Germany 9.4%

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

In 1906-13 both local and state taxes on peasantry rose from 601 mln to 770 mln rubles (hike in 28%), while the amount of peasantry numerically increased only by 9%. While overhyped Stolypin reforms caused the increase of gross income (per person) from 31.6 to 36.7 rubles, while the payment for leasing of the land and taxes “ate” 22% of that.

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren't that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

"Overall, in 1912, peasants per capita paid 8.7 times less in direct taxes than the urban population."

Of course there were many "indirect" taxes paid by peasants - such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn't affect someone who chose not to drink much..

Question – how did this outstanding gentleman in the time of upheaval and massive famines among the peasants managed to get for himself a starting capital? During the reign of Nikky the Spinless, when the peasants during the Revolution of 1905-07 were revolting, burning down nobles estates and lynching “hard-working” kulak extortionists? Or did it happen after the Revolution of the godless Bolshevik pig-dogs?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin's reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin's rule. The period of the Revolution didn't involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn't want to steal from him. "Kulak extortionist" seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn't know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Do you have any idea about how the land was distributed in Russian village? He’d be allocated just enough land by the mir to get his family fed – not more.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

How did he all the sudden chanced upon much more land than his fellow villagers? When did it happened? If he from the beginning had more land than others – how could he work it all by himself and his family without hiring batraks? And how could he hire them in the first place not having a starting capital?

I don't know the details and the timeline. I know he and his family worked hard, saved what they made from the surplus, and invested their savings in a windmill and additional land (not sure which order) that in turn generated more capital. More land meant they could hire farmhands to work the land. No theft, exploitation (in a normal, not Marxist sense), extortion etc. involved. Just hard work, patience, and some brains.

" If a guy needs work and you give him work so that he is better off than he was before – normal people would not refer to this arrangement as exploitation. On the other hand, stealing people’s land and forcing them onto collective farms for the benefit of the State is probably exploitation. But under Stalinism everything was reversed."

Economic exploitation (according to Marx) is exactly what you just described

And this kind of thinking is what derailed the lands of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.

Why did these people have to sold their labor to someone else and not work their own land?

I don't know the laborers' back stories. Perhaps they lost their land due to some personal failures, or parental failures.

Not at all. All actions were taken by outsiders coming to the village. The neighbors liked him.

Uh-huh. Let’s pretend that this could be even true.

The guy who probably has no actual connection to villages thinks what he read in his Sovok propaganda publiciations is reality.

They liked that he built the village’s windmill because thanks to him they no longer had to trudge 5 km or whatever to another village to get their grain milled.

Did they also liked paying him money?

In the same way that I like paying money for groceries from a store near my house and am happy I don't have to drive 20 minutes to a grocery store. I am not "exploited" by the guy charging me for groceries and don't expect to get them for free.

stop this BS about “culling of the best and brightest”. They were not. And there were best and brightest after them. Or do you subscribe to some racial theory bullshit, how “superior genes” of some classes are what makes them superior in the first place?

You don't believe that intelligence has a genetic component and that successful people, in general, tend to be smarter than less successful ones?

Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

When – during the Hetmanate? Petyura? Whites?

Again – have you read the text of the “Decree on the Land”? The private ownership of the land in USSR has been eliminated. It also prohibited the use of hired labor. If that fellow somehow added more land to his personal nadel during the NEP he was violatin the law. If he was still using batrak labor – he was violating the law. His legislative nihilism is not an excuse.

I don’t know the details and the timeline. I know he and his family worked hard, saved what they made from the surplus, and invested their savings in a windmill and additional land (not sure which order) that in turn generated more capital. More land meant they could hire farmhands to work the land. No theft, exploitation (in a normal, not Marxist sense), extortion etc. involved. Just hard work, patience, and some brains.

Beating up money from your fellow villagers, coming up with a plan to, against all odds, get that surplus in the first place AND continue to flaunt the existing legislation even during the Soviet rule – sure lot of work, patience and some cohones. Not brains though – he was a fool if he thought that in the Land of Soviets he would be allowed to continue his basically capitalist enterprise forever without consequences.

And this kind of thinking is what derailed the lands of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.

No – a dipshit on the throne and nearly totally worthless ruling class first derailed, and then buried the Russian Empire, including a lot of people responsible.

I don’t know the laborers’ back stories. Perhaps they lost their land due to some personal failures, or parental failures.

Tsk – what a loss! Don’t like them, people of lover classes, do you, AP? They simply could not. The mir was in charge of allocating the communal land. It should have provided them with the land. And the lack of personal land was not a bug, but a feature.

The guy who probably has no actual connection to villages thinks what he read in his Sovok propaganda publiciations is reality.

I suggest you should assume less and stop smoking strawmen.

In the same way that I like paying money for groceries from a store near my house and am happy I don’t have to drive 20 minutes to a grocery store. I am not “exploited” by the guy charging me for groceries and don’t expect to get them for free.

The thing here though – this analogy don’t work for the village as it was at that time.

You don’t believe that intelligence has a genetic component and that successful people, in general, tend to be smarter than less successful ones?

Indeed, I do. Less scrupulous – sure. Not smarter.

Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire.

What a charming view – and in total agreement with (Neo)Nazi propaganda to boot!

No, the Soviet Power only stepped up against the excesses of unchecked capitalist social Darwinism, when a tiny group a self-proclaimed betters instead of working for the common good would rather see their fellow villagers poor and starving, and becoming employed by their former fellow peasant. And because said fine fellow would think first of all about his own enrichment there is absolutely no chance that he’d pay absolutely fair wage, because thus he won’t be able to accumulate surplus income for himself.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

When – during the Hetmanate? Petyura? Whites?

As a result of Stolypin's reforms, prior to World War I.

The private ownership of the land in USSR has been eliminated. It also prohibited the use of hired labor. If that fellow somehow added more land to his personal nadel during the NEP he was violatin the law.

I trust Britannica more than I do you:

http://www.britannica.com/event/New-Economic-Policy-Soviet-history

Accordingly, the 10th Party Congress in March 1921 introduced the measures of the New Economic Policy. These measures included the return of most agriculture, retail trade, and small-scale light industry to private ownership and management while the state retained control of heavy industry, transport, banking, and foreign trade. Money was reintroduced into the economy in 1922 (it had been abolished under War Communism). The peasantry were allowed to own and cultivate their own land, while paying taxes to the state.

Beating up money from your fellow villagers

Again with the Sovok fairytales.

"Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire."

What a charming view – and in total agreement with (Neo)Nazi propaganda to boot!

Nazis considered Kulaks as all Slavs to be subhumans. They largely kept the collective farms intact (to the disappointment of the peasants, who hoped to be freed from them) because such real exploitation of peasants served their purposes.

Your sneering at generalities about hard work, patience and future orientation (leading to saving) being rewarded is unintelligent. It is comparable in stupidity to denying that a school of 500 pupils in which the average IQ was 120 and sd 17 would produce more gifted scientists than one in which the average was 100 and sd 15. Generalisations tend to be true as a matter of common sense assessment of probabilities.

As to the Holomodor, what was going on simultaneously in Belarus, Moldavia, Russia (around Moscow) etc. ? Was the peasantry so different? Were they treated differently? If so, how, and why?

I haven't read him, but from what I understand, Freud did not conduct experiments. I don't think he was even in the science business. He wrote about single cases he had dealt with. And everything he's famous for - the oedipal complex, penis envy, the oral/anal/etc. stuff - sounds like nonsense to me.

And psychology is certainly an area where experiments CAN be conducted and data can be gathered. And lots of people do that now. I've seen it claimed that for a long time Freud's nonsense took the oxygen (funding, interest) from the more scientific areas of psychology, retarding them by decades.

The most famous living linguist is Chomsky. Lots and lots of linguists think he's a fraud. Even though I'm a big glossophiliac, I've never read anything by Chomsky. How come? It's boring. I'm interested in two things: learning to read in foreign languages and reading about the history of languages, their genealogy and relationships with each other. He has nothing to say about that at all. In fact, he's a monoglot.

He claims to have discovered a universal grammar, a set of general rules that apply to all languages. Some people who've looked at it say that it bears an uncanny resemblance to the grammar of English, the only language Chomsky really speaks. They say that he deals with languages that differ from English greatly the way that medieval astronomers dealt with the challenges presented by the geocentric model. They drew epicycles and he made up complex exceptions to his "universal" grammar. The more different a language is from English, the more exceptions.

You WOULD expect a monoglot to underestimate the extent of differences between languages, to overestimate how normal and representative his own language is and to start making up complex excuses once contrary evidence is presented to him. This sounds comical, but so does race denialism, Marxism, libertarianism and lots of other things that have become popular over the years with very smart people.

Chomsky's kind of linguistics has taken a lot of funding away from real linguistics, the kind that gathers data, tries to establish connections between languages, tries to decipher undeciphered texts.

Freud did not conduct experiments. I don’t think he was even in the science business. He wrote about single cases he had dealt with.

After writing this I thought “did I misremember this? Was it really this bad?”. So I went searching online. This is about psychoanalysis:

…Freud fully presented only twelve cases, but he mentioned over one hundred minor cases.

It’s my impression that Freud’s writing went like this: “I had a patient A who complained of such and such problems and I told him this and he told me that…” And then Freud would draw some general point from that story. And I think these numbers – 12 major cases and 100 minor ones – refer to the patients with whom he worked out psychoanalysis.

Obviously this is not science. These are stories he told about some patients he’d seen.

I’ve never read any life advice books – Tony Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Dale Carnegie, Rich Dad, Poor Dad – I only know that stuff from advertising. But I would imagine their methodology to be similar. “I knew a troubled young woman who had such and such problems” and so on.

Obviously the Chicken Soup for the Soul books can’t possibly be as crazy as the Oedipal complex and penis envy. This is probably like the difference between Harlequin novels and po-mo trash like that Pynchon novel I recently reviewed on my little blog. Freud was probably perverse on purpose and Tony Robbins is probably just stupid. But neither is a plausible source of truth.

Freud was more of a mythologist and literary critic. His patients were there to inspire his fancy. He was a bit of a confessor/social worker, too. But mostly it was about the absurd and unrealistic theories he crafted, and which were of course never tested. He should've written tragedies, or something.

You ever read his cases? They're ridiculous. Any current psychologist would be laughed out of the room for bringing up his unexpurgated thoughts and methods. Not that they're scientists, either. But they know a little better. His good ideas, or at least the ones that are still acceptable, probably came from someone else.

I especially hate how people pretend he cane up with the Unconscious. As if everyone before then considered people did everything deliberately, and were omniscient about their thoughts, like gods. Darwin didn't invent evolution, and Freud didn't invent the unconscious. Wittgenstein came up with a fun name for the unconscious, by the way. He called it Mr. I-Don't-Know. Try replacing psychologists' reference to the unconscious or subconscious with "Mr. I-Don't-Know. It's funny.

Someone who babbles about “Intervents” shouldn’t have a predilection for accusing others of attacking straw men.

There were no foreign militray itervention (aka "Intervents") in Russian Civil War? Not at all? That's what you are taught these days?

It had a negligible effect on the course of the war. Sure, the Whites got some surplus French stores that would otherwise have rusted peacefully away in their depots, but other help was lacking. Consult the Allied casualty lists. Some, such as Churchill, would have liked to provide more assistance, but they were easily defeated in the House of Commons. Thanks, Sir Oswald Mosley! As for the US, they were only in Siberia to keep an eye on the Japanese.

b) “Free market” was present when a peasant could sell what was produced on his farm and could use the profit for his purposes.

"When" means - "in what year?"

c) You seem to have a Sovok idea about it. I suspect the horrors of the 1990s were due at least in part to Sovok assumptions of what capitalism must be like – and implementing those ideas.

As opposed to Ukie emigrant living in the Bastion of Freedoom and 'Mockracy, who, without resorting to such meaningless things as "facts" can judge other people as "untermenchen", while singing "Щеня вмерала...".

Also - an expert on what is "Sovok". Probably epically butthurt by it. Somehow.

d) Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.

Oh, how sweet! :)

And you actually believe this? Sure, you do!

1913-194 per capita taxes as share of per capita income:

[snip]

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

I don't know what Mironov was smoking at the moment. His numbers are simply off. UK's was not 11.4% but 10.5%, France's not 13.8% but 11.7%. What numbers do he cite about these nations per capita income? What sources did he use?

Well, I can go with your uncited figures or I can trust what many old rural people from the former USSR said when asked what their parents or grandparents had told them of village life before the Revolution: the government left us alone, other than collecting taxes once a year, and the taxes weren’t that high.

Or I can go with this, from The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov:

Or you can try to study something besides him? But this might harm your position, right? Like N.N. Porkovsky - "On Income taxes" (1915), A.L. Veinstein "Taxation and tithes of the peasantry in pre-war and Revolutionary period" (1924)".

Of course there were many “indirect” taxes paid by peasants – such as for alcohol, or tobacco. The Russian government made a lot of money on that, and alcoholism was a real problem in villages. But this didn’t affect someone who chose not to drink much..

But of course! This explains all! Besides the fact, that indirect taxes also covered
excises on sugar and even matches.

And the land taxes was collected twice a year (first one before June 30). How did this fine gentleman met the tax collector only once? And what kind of peasant could possibly pay up the land tax by early summer, without incurring a debt on his family?

He became prosperous, as I said, during the time of Stolypin’s reforms, and continued to be prosperous and productive through NEP until he was liquidated and his land stolen during the time of Stalin’s rule. The period of the Revolution didn’t involve looting of theft from him because his neighbors liked him and didn’t want to steal from him. “Kulak extortionist” seems to be a Sovok fairytale told to and believed by clueless proles who didn’t know what was actually happening in the countryside.

Ah-ha. So he was a kulak, who capitalized on Stolypin's reform aimed at destruction of the peasant communities and mass pauperization. Was it under Stolypin when he built the mill? Or was the most active in expropriating ("stealing") of former noble's lands, which resulted in the sudden "windfall"?

And we must accept as an unquestionable truth that he was "liked" by the neighbors not because his podkulachniks could easily break their legs or torch down their houses, but because he was a "hard working". They also, apparently, masochistically liked to pay for his services.

As for the "kulak extortionists" - I can cite many evidences, criminal cases etc. That's been before the Revolution, this continued after it. But, of course, the much learned emigrant adepts of the RTWHL won't believe in single word of the "Sovok" documents, right?

d) “Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways.”

Oh, how sweet!

And you actually believe this? Sure, you do!

So you do not believe that, in general and under free conditions, people who work harder get more, those who are more future-oriented are likely to save more, and those who are more clever are more likely to use their money in more effective ways?

Nice to know how a Sovok mind works.

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

I don’t know what Mironov was smoking at the moment. His numbers are simply off. UK’s was not 11.4% but 10.5%, France’s not 13.8% but 11.7%. What numbers do he cite about these nations per capita income? What sources did he use?

Sorry, I trust Mironov more than I do you, who inflates a Russian famine’s .5 million victims to 3 million and deflates a Soviet famine from 5-7 million to 2.2 million victims.

And we must accept as an unquestionable truth that he was “liked” by the neighbors not because his podkulachniks could easily break their legs or torch down their houses, but because he was a “hard working”. They also, apparently, masochistically liked to pay for his services.

What strange stories someone taught you proles, about Kulaks breaking legs and torching down houses in the countryside.

Why do you think paying for a service is a masochistic act. When you get a haircut do you consider paying the guy for his service to be masochism because you didn’t get it for free? Is this how the resentful Sovok mind works?

The Kulak got enough capital to build a windmill. This generated some extra income for him (win!). The neighbors who used this windmill, which had not existed before the kulak built, paid for its use as much as they had been paying to use another windmill, but now didn’t have to travel 5 km to another village to use its windmill (win). Everybody is happy.

The Sovoks came to the village from the town, arrested and killed the kulak, stole his land and that of the other peasants. Everybody lost, to varying degrees. Village’s agricultural output declined – its most productive member was eliminated.

So you do not believe that, in general and under free conditions, people who work harder get more, those who are more future-oriented are likely to save more, and those who are more clever are more likely to use their money in more effective ways?

I know I said I got tirted of arguing, but this is just too funny.

By this logic Galicians must be one of the laziest, least intelligent, least future-oriented people in Europe.

Look at this list:

https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/744036455006216192

The Ternopol region has the lowest salary level of any region in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

As Anatoly noted in Twitter, the Crimea has a higher salary level than any Ukrainian region, including Kiev.

d) "Not words, but traits. People who work harder get more. Those who are future-oriented are likely to save more, rather than to squander the fruits of their labor. Those who are more clever are likely to use what they made in more effective ways."

Oh, how sweet! :)

And you actually believe this? Sure, you do!

So you do not believe that, in general and under free conditions, people who work harder get more, those who are more future-oriented are likely to save more, and those who are more clever are more likely to use their money in more effective ways?

Nice to know how a Sovok mind works. :)

Source: The Standard of Living and Revolutions in Russia, 1700-1917
By Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

I don’t know what Mironov was smoking at the moment. His numbers are simply off. UK’s was not 11.4% but 10.5%, France’s not 13.8% but 11.7%. What numbers do he cite about these nations per capita income? What sources did he use?

Sorry, I trust Mironov more than I do you, who inflates a Russian famine's .5 million victims to 3 million and deflates a Soviet famine from 5-7 million to 2.2 million victims.

And we must accept as an unquestionable truth that he was “liked” by the neighbors not because his podkulachniks could easily break their legs or torch down their houses, but because he was a “hard working”. They also, apparently, masochistically liked to pay for his services.

What strange stories someone taught you proles, about Kulaks breaking legs and torching down houses in the countryside.

Why do you think paying for a service is a masochistic act. When you get a haircut do you consider paying the guy for his service to be masochism because you didn't get it for free? Is this how the resentful Sovok mind works?

The Kulak got enough capital to build a windmill. This generated some extra income for him (win!). The neighbors who used this windmill, which had not existed before the kulak built, paid for its use as much as they had been paying to use another windmill, but now didn't have to travel 5 km to another village to use its windmill (win). Everybody is happy.

The Sovoks came to the village from the town, arrested and killed the kulak, stole his land and that of the other peasants. Everybody lost, to varying degrees. Village's agricultural output declined - its most productive member was eliminated.

So you do not believe that, in general and under free conditions, people who work harder get more, those who are more future-oriented are likely to save more, and those who are more clever are more likely to use their money in more effective ways?

I know I said I got tirted of arguing, but this is just too funny.

By this logic Galicians must be one of the laziest, least intelligent, least future-oriented people in Europe.

Freud did not conduct experiments. I don’t think he was even in the science business. He wrote about single cases he had dealt with.

After writing this I thought "did I misremember this? Was it really this bad?". So I went searching online. This is about psychoanalysis:

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/beystehner.html

...Freud fully presented only twelve cases, but he mentioned over one hundred minor cases.

It's my impression that Freud's writing went like this: "I had a patient A who complained of such and such problems and I told him this and he told me that..." And then Freud would draw some general point from that story. And I think these numbers - 12 major cases and 100 minor ones - refer to the patients with whom he worked out psychoanalysis.

Obviously this is not science. These are stories he told about some patients he'd seen.

I've never read any life advice books - Tony Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Dale Carnegie, Rich Dad, Poor Dad - I only know that stuff from advertising. But I would imagine their methodology to be similar. "I knew a troubled young woman who had such and such problems" and so on.

Obviously the Chicken Soup for the Soul books can't possibly be as crazy as the Oedipal complex and penis envy. This is probably like the difference between Harlequin novels and po-mo trash like that Pynchon novel I recently reviewed on my little blog. Freud was probably perverse on purpose and Tony Robbins is probably just stupid. But neither is a plausible source of truth.

So you do not believe that, in general and under free conditions, people who work harder get more, those who are more future-oriented are likely to save more, and those who are more clever are more likely to use their money in more effective ways?

I know I said I got tirted of arguing, but this is just too funny.

By this logic Galicians must be one of the laziest, least intelligent, least future-oriented people in Europe.

Look at this list:

https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/744036455006216192

The Ternopol region has the lowest salary level of any region in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

As Anatoly noted in Twitter, the Crimea has a higher salary level than any Ukrainian region, including Kiev.

An artifact of the Ukrainian currency’s exchange rate. And – I obviously meant relative to others around them. Unless you mean that Russians are lazier, less intelligent, etc. than all Westerners.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

When - during the Hetmanate? Petyura? Whites?

Again - have you read the text of the "Decree on the Land"? The private ownership of the land in USSR has been eliminated. It also prohibited the use of hired labor. If that fellow somehow added more land to his personal nadel during the NEP he was violatin the law. If he was still using batrak labor - he was violating the law. His legislative nihilism is not an excuse.

I don’t know the details and the timeline. I know he and his family worked hard, saved what they made from the surplus, and invested their savings in a windmill and additional land (not sure which order) that in turn generated more capital. More land meant they could hire farmhands to work the land. No theft, exploitation (in a normal, not Marxist sense), extortion etc. involved. Just hard work, patience, and some brains.

Beating up money from your fellow villagers, coming up with a plan to, against all odds, get that surplus in the first place AND continue to flaunt the existing legislation even during the Soviet rule - sure lot of work, patience and some cohones. Not brains though - he was a fool if he thought that in the Land of Soviets he would be allowed to continue his basically capitalist enterprise forever without consequences.

And this kind of thinking is what derailed the lands of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.

No - a dipshit on the throne and nearly totally worthless ruling class first derailed, and then buried the Russian Empire, including a lot of people responsible.

I don’t know the laborers’ back stories. Perhaps they lost their land due to some personal failures, or parental failures.

Tsk - what a loss! Don't like them, people of lover classes, do you, AP? They simply could not. The mir was in charge of allocating the communal land. It should have provided them with the land. And the lack of personal land was not a bug, but a feature.

The guy who probably has no actual connection to villages thinks what he read in his Sovok propaganda publiciations is reality.

I suggest you should assume less and stop smoking strawmen.

In the same way that I like paying money for groceries from a store near my house and am happy I don’t have to drive 20 minutes to a grocery store. I am not “exploited” by the guy charging me for groceries and don’t expect to get them for free.

The thing here though - this analogy don't work for the village as it was at that time.

You don’t believe that intelligence has a genetic component and that successful people, in general, tend to be smarter than less successful ones?

Indeed, I do. Less scrupulous - sure. Not smarter.

Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire.

What a charming view - and in total agreement with (Neo)Nazi propaganda to boot!

No, the Soviet Power only stepped up against the excesses of unchecked capitalist social Darwinism, when a tiny group a self-proclaimed betters instead of working for the common good would rather see their fellow villagers poor and starving, and becoming employed by their former fellow peasant. And because said fine fellow would think first of all about his own enrichment there is absolutely no chance that he'd pay absolutely fair wage, because thus he won't be able to accumulate surplus income for himself.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

When – during the Hetmanate? Petyura? Whites?

As a result of Stolypin’s reforms, prior to World War I.

The private ownership of the land in USSR has been eliminated. It also prohibited the use of hired labor. If that fellow somehow added more land to his personal nadel during the NEP he was violatin the law.

Accordingly, the 10th Party Congress in March 1921 introduced the measures of the New Economic Policy. These measures included the return of most agriculture, retail trade, and small-scale light industry to private ownership and management while the state retained control of heavy industry, transport, banking, and foreign trade. Money was reintroduced into the economy in 1922 (it had been abolished under War Communism). The peasantry were allowed to own and cultivate their own land, while paying taxes to the state.

Beating up money from your fellow villagers

Again with the Sovok fairytales.

“Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire.”

What a charming view – and in total agreement with (Neo)Nazi propaganda to boot!

Nazis considered Kulaks as all Slavs to be subhumans. They largely kept the collective farms intact (to the disappointment of the peasants, who hoped to be freed from them) because such real exploitation of peasants served their purposes.

The thing that counts for many Russians is that NO ONE brought Russia to greater power and glory than Stalin did, even though it owed to strange twists of fate.

Russia, due to its size and population and imperial possessions, always strove for greatness and great power status, but it always slipped away… until Stalin came along.

Russia was a serious underachiever. Its greatest triumph prior to Stalin was the defeat of Napoleon, but even that owed more to weather than Russian might. Napoleon defeated himself by overreach.

Russia failed to achieve true greatness because it was badly organized and backward. Also, paradoxically, its very advantage was its disadvantage. Having to rule over such vast territories, Russian power never consolidated into a iron fist like that of UK, Germany, or France. Russia was too busy overseeing its vast empire to ever develop a concentrated core power. This was also true of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe of China as well. Even though UK did became a great global power, it first consolidated power at home in its small island.

But Russia was a sprawling power from the beginning, a kind of blob. It failed to developed a proper spine. Its power spilled all over the place.

So, Russia got licked by Brits in Central Asia. Russia got beat by Japan, a non-white nation in 1905. And Russia lost badly in WWI.

Also, Russians have low national character. They lack discipline, order, focus, ethics, civic mindedness. They unruly and slovenly. They like to guzzle vodka, dance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks.

Prussia was small compared to Russia, but Prussians leaders were able to shape Prussians into a hardy, conscientious, orderly, and disciplined people.
Maybe Protestant ethos had something to do with it. Prussian elites and bureaucracy were quality, and they believed and trusted in the potential of their own people. So, they molded their Prussian folks into hardy fighting men, artisans, businessmen, scholars.

In contrast, maybe due to Byzantine and Oriental influences(of barbarian Mongols than civilized Chinese or Japanese), Russian elites became unfocused. If Protestantism emphasized direct link between human soul and God, Byzantinist Russian Orthodox created a vast labyrinth between God and man.
God could only be accessed through big bearded priests bellowing some tune like bears emerging from hibernation. Since individuals lacked direct access to God, ethics lagged in Russia. Ethics was just about listening to some bellowing priest who served the corrupt Czars.

But there were some visionary rulers in Russia like Peter.
But unlike Prussian rulers who ruled over quality people, Russian rulers looked at their own people and thought, “what a hopeless bunch.” So, instead of trying to shape the populace into quality people, Russian rulers relied on foreign experts to rule stuff like government, institutions, and military. Consider how Russian business and government came to be filled with Germans. Russians figured, “We should get the Germans and French for brainy stuff, and we should just use the Russians as cattle.” So, in a way, the Jewish contempt for the Russian masses wasn’t all that different from that of Russian rulers.

Now, someone like Frederick the Great was a Francophile and preferred French language and culture to German, but he still respected fellow Prussians, high and low, for their conscientiousness and ability.

But Russian rulers saw their own people as dumb lowly cattle. Also, as Russian society became overly hierarchical, the Russian elites feared educating and raising the masses. So, serfdom continued in Russia for much longer. And even after serfdom, there was generally less faith in the people.

Russian elites didn’t feel much kinship with their own people. Consider the scene in Dr. Zhivago where the rich man’s daughter goes to France to study. She has nothing in common with the Russian folks. Also, many Russian rulers were not even Russian. Catherine the Great was some German ho who loved horses. She loved the power of being a Russian empress but she didn’t give a crap about Russians. She made serfdom even tougher under her rule. So, even by blood, Russian monarchy were foreigners than Russians. They looked upon Russian masses as property than as fellow nationals. Of course, all kings felt that way back in the day, but there was more feeling of unity between British king and British folks than between Russian rulers and Russian masses, especially as the conduits between Russian rulers and Russian masses were the bellowing bearded priests whose singing could put you to sleep.

Given the attitude of Russian rulers toward Russian people, the theme of power in Russian history was rarely about justice or niceness. Consider Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein’s film. He’s sort of nutty, but he has the ruthlessness to rule with an iron fist and clobber the tarty Tartars and frighten the fruity Polacks.
He was Ivan the Terrifying, Ivan the Awesome, Ivan the World-Trembler. He wasn’t a nice guy but he had the will to rule over a vast empire.

Ivan was Stalin’s model. And it was under Stalin that, for the first and ONLY time, Russia fulfilled its ambition of becoming a truly great power.
Under Stalin in short time, Russian industrial output surpassed that of Germany, the great power of Europe. Even after the German mega-suckerpunch, reeling Russia gathered its senses and rolled back and smashed mighty Germany and, in the process, swallowed all of Eastern Europe. And Russia got total revenge against Japan by steamrolling into North China and whupping the Jappers in the finals days of WWII.
And soon, Russia had nukes too.
Under Stalin, Russia not only became a genuine great power but a superpower, one of the two greatest powers that ever existed, the other being USA.

This was truly an epic feat.

But there was a price to pay. There were millions of lives. There was the totalitarian system. The climate of fear and paranoia.
And even if Stalinism had been nicer, communism doesn’t work in the long run. We saw how Russia, even under reforms under Khrushchev and then later Gorby, couldn’t save communism.

Communism was too stifling of the individual soul and initiative.

But here’s something ironic about Stalinism. Even though Stalin was one of the biggest killers if Russian history and a true modern tyrant, he did have a certain faith in the ability of the Russian masses. And this was different from the way of past rulers.
Past rulers figured that Russian masses were only good as cattle. Indeed, past Russian rulers tended to see Russians like Hitler did. Hitler dreamed of invading Russia and reducing Russian masses into illiterate slaves incapable of sophisticated human tasks. Of course, Russian rulers weren’t as extreme as Hitler, but they still thought Russian masses would never amount to much.
Russian rulers thought the brainy stuff should be done by Germans and other foreigners, or even Jews.
And even Lenin and Trotsky felt this way. Lenin praised Jews and Germans but disdained dummy Russians. And one reason why Trotsky wanted to spread the revolution to Germany was because he respected German ability. He didn’t think much could be done with Russian dummies.

In contrast, Stalin believed in the potential ability of the Russian masses. He expanded education and believed in the possibility of turning, almost overnight, sons of illiterate peasants into engineers, generals, doctors, scientists, teachers, and etc. And he half-succeeded in this. And there were real results and real transformation. So, even though Stalin was a mass killer and many innocents died, many young people of humble backgrounds really did their lives transformed.

The tragedy of all this is that even though Stalin educated and elevated many people from humble backgrounds, communism in the long run buries and stifles individual initiative. Ayn Rand might have been extreme and eccentric, but she was right that it takes individual freedom to make great breakthroughs. As Bill Buckley said of the Mona Lisa, “You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters.”

If Stalin had been more of a nationalist-socialist who allowed some degree of individual freedom, USSR could have achieved much more. It may not have collapsed.

To this extent, the National Socialist model was better. And if Hitler had maintained an alliance with the USSR, and if USSR had taken cues from Germany, maybe the USSR could have developed a system that could have avoided collapse.

The Fascist model didn’t collapse on its own. It was defeated cuz of reckless foreign policy and warmongering. In contrast, Soviet communism collapsed from its own weight, and Chinese communism changed into a national social-capitalist model that is close to fascism. Chinese, on their own, rejected Maoism.

Anyway, Russia needs to develop a model of having many strong men than being dependent on one strongman. This desire for a strongman betrays the Russian lack self-confidence, direction, focus, or discipline. They need someone to play master who will shape them, order them, and always tell them what to do.

A truly functional society has many little strong-men who, on their own, have a sense of direction and focus.

Look at Jews. Even a small Jewish minority community is filled with Jews with strong sense of identity, purpose, heritage, duty, obligation, and direction. So, even without leaders or strongman to guide them, Jews are doing stuff on their own. That’s what makes them great.

Now, it’s good for Russia to have good strong leaders, but in the end, Russians must find the strength in themselves so that, even without ‘great leaders’, they will do what’s right.

America used to be like that before the egomaniacal Jews and homos took over.
Few US presidents qualify as great, and even the greatest never had the power of Stalin or even Putin. But America was always advancing and growing ceaselessly because so many American individuals were serious people about God, country, work, rule of law, business, culture, innovation, and etc. Sadly, that America seems to have passed. COMING APART is the new reality. The urban elites are getting richer and richer and cocooned in their decadent hipster privilege. White working class is turning into trash.
Recently, I went on a trip and saw so many ‘white trash’ types with tattoos and piercings. It was an ugly sight. It is becoming the new normal. And I also see more mudsharks and mulatto babies. Ewwwwww. That’s the end of the white race right there.

Russia can become a truly good and great country, but it’s going to take more than Putin or some strongman. Russians need a way to become many little strong-men than rely so heavily on the strongman as savior.

Chinese are harder-working than Russians. In this sense, Chinese are more like an army of little strong-men. Their achievements in the past 30 yrs have truly been amazing. But Chinese are not free men. Chinese individuals got work ethic, but they lack genuine values, conscience, and sense of individual free will.

Of course, Chinese have their own strongman mythology with Mao. Mao was far worse than Stalin who at least achieved certain things. Mao just destroyed everything he touched. Still, he was a genuinely powerful Chinese leader who was respected by the world community, and that counts for something to the Chinese after a century of humiliation when China was slapped around and seen as Sick Man of Asia.

I think the appeal of Stalin and Mao also has something to do with the soullessness of globalism. While Chinese today eat better and live better than in the past, there used to be big great themes that captured their imagination. During the imperialist era, Chinese dreamed of liberation and resistance. During WWII, they dreamed of beating back the Japanese dwarfs. And even though Mao was nuts, China under Mao had grand themes of revolution, redemption, purification, and etc. But since the economic rise of China, Chinese don’t know what history is about anymore. The big themes are gone. End of History? Is it enough to just live for material goods?

So, harking back to Stalin and Mao is a harking back to a time when History was still alive as a battle of ideas and clash of civilizations.
But in the End of History era, things may be more peaceful but there seems to be no higher or bigger meaning to life but consumption.

But but but… things may be changing. Contrary to Francis Fukyomama, the End of History was not the triumph of Liberal Democracy. It was not the victory of abstract principles of free markets and democracy. Sure, those are still operative in politics and economics.
But the real driver of Power in the world is still ethnicity and identity. The West isn’t so much about democracy, rule of law, and free markets as Jewish Ethnic Domination and Homo supremacist politics of identity.

The Wars in the Middle East were not about ‘freedom’ despite Bush-Cheney’s bullshit. They were Wars for Israel. Jewish Tribalism and Homo neo-aristocratism are masked by call for ‘democracy, human rights, and etc’, but Jewish elites are really about Jewish power and homos are vain about being co-rulers of the world.

Democracy, free markets, and ‘human rights’ are all tools and instruments(and weapons) of those who control them. Every democracy serves the ethnic power that dominates it. After all, democracy can favor the ‘far right’ like Trump or ‘far left’ like Sanders. German democracy has been for open borders. Japanese democracy has been far less enthused about such. Israeli democracy is for Jewish nationalism. Turkish democracy is for Muslim power. In some nations, democracy pushed the nation to more ‘left’, and in others, democracy pushed it more ‘right’.

Also, ‘human rights’ is not some abstract idea. It is a tool used by the powerful. So, US will invoke human rights against nations it sees as enemies but will overlook the same ‘human rights’ abuses in its allies. Look at Hillary calling Putin a ‘new hitler’ but going easy on Saudis. Also, this push for ‘gay rights’ is anything but. It goes way beyond asking the world to tolerate homos and let them do their homo stuff in their private lives. It is about making homomania as the new global faith for all nations. And it’s about Jewish globalists ferreting out homos in every nation and using them as well-funded collaborators. It is no longer about ‘gay rights’ and all about Gay Might. Russia’s NYET to the homo agenda has to do with the fact that the homo agenda is a proxy NGO tool of Globo-Jewdonia to subvert and control Russia.

Because of Jewish-and-Homo globalist ambitions, the End of History has come to an end. Tensions are mounting. US is moving against China and Russia.
And Jewish-and-Homo Wars in the Middle East have destroyed entire nations, and shitloads of Muslims are moving to EU and America, and there will be huge tensions.
Also, black African population is exploding and tons of blacks are moving to the West. Fukyomama’s End of History idealism will NOT work with blacks. Blacks are too aggressive, too low IQ, too strong, too self-centered, and too sexually crazed to uphold Western values and ways. As EU fills up with Negroes and Muslims, things will fall apart. Now, white folks could rise up and push out Muslims and Negroes and save the West, but they won’t. Why not? Because their minds and balls have been cucked and castrated by PC controlled by Jews and homos.

The endgame will be like the ending of ZARDOZ.

I mean Merkel the louse is destroying Germany but Germans do nothing. Sweden has been ruined by Diversity, but PC is still the faith of that nation.
Hillary praises Merkel and calls for more illegals, but she has the advantage over Trump. So many whites still prefer her. (But then, part of her appeal is social status and prestige. Even though she poses as the candidate of ‘social justice’ and ‘equality’, many affluent and educated whites prefer her because the Democratic Party and ‘progressivism’ are associated with privilege, wealth, and prestige like Harvard, Yale, Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, art galleries, and etc. Of course, Hillaryism is really a hate crime against white middle class, working class, and poor class, but those people don’t matter and are even dismissed by Cuckservatives.)

Anyway, history is heating up again because…

1. Jewish and Homo ambitions are global and insatiable. They are like a virus that must take over everything. And this means ramping up tensions against China and Russia. This may not lead to actual war, but Jews figure that without such fear-mongering against Russia and China, the globalist coalition might fall apart.
Jews have to scare all Europeans of Russian aggression to hold Nato and EU together.
US has to scare Asian nations about China to keep US military presence all over Asia and make Asian nations obey US policy. It is the GLUE.

2. Low white birthrates plus massive immigration will lead to rising tensions in the West. As many Muslim and esp African newcomers won’t be able to contribute to much and will cause much trouble, there will be huge racial tensions down the line.

Fukyomama’s dream of End of History might have materialized, at least for the West and East Asia, IF there had been closed borders and white majority rule in the West.
But as Jews and homos took elite power, they opened the borders wide. And as Jews and homos messed up the Middle East and broke the dam, tons of angry Muslims are pouring into the West. And all those blacks who got a taste of the West on the internet decided to go there as well by using guilt loopholes. Willfully strand themselves out in the sea, they have Europeans save them from their own faux-self-endangerment and then rampage around Europe. They are worse than Somali pirates. At least pirates are honest in their aggression. These ‘refugees’ are really pirates-in-refugee clothing who play helpless and cry for SOS in order jump onto the ship called Europe and pillage & rape it.

But they have their protectors in preening, vain, morally narcissistic Western elites who love to show how ‘progressive’ they are by expressing compassion. Of course, the likes of Merkel, Hillary, and George Clooney won’t have to deal with the problems as they have it so good for themselves. They just live for approval from the Jews who, by the way, are for Israel remaining a Jewish state.

Anyway, big things are underfoot, and suddenly Russians and Chinese may have Big Themes to struggle for once again. What we have now is a Jewish War on Russia with homos as shock troops. There is no doubt about it. The so-called ‘new cold war’ is a Jewish War on Russia. I mean which ethnic group has been agitating against Russia? If US and EU had no Jews, there would be no Jewish War on Russia.

Jews love their total control in the US, and Jews hate China and Russia as ‘great power’ models that are defiant of the US, won’t bend over to homo minority supremacism, and where the rulers and ruled are both of the same people.

Defense of Motherland from the GLOB will be the new great struggle of the 21st century. But for this to happen, we need to identify the enemy. It is the globalist Jews and their homo allies. Of course, not all Jews are like this nor endorse it, but the Jewish-powers-that-be in media, academia, and government overwhelmingly support it.

Putin is very close to Jewish oligarchs. Also, because Jew-worship is such a fixture of the West, he is loathe to spell out the Jewish power in all this.

But real change can only when the force that is creating the most problems around the world is identified. It’s like Michael in GODFATHER II had to smoke out who the real enemy was. It was Hyman Roth.

Wow. That is an awesome essay. You ought to be writing for Unz Review.

On the subject of Stalin, he devoted a huge amount of USSR GDP towards military spending. Arguably it was this that enabled the USSR to survive Barbarossa. Historian David Stahel has shown Barbarossa had already failed by September 1941. German defeat was only a matter of time thereafter. Hitler admitted his amazement at the colossal level of USSR spending on armaments.

Now I made myself to read the essay by “Anonymy” in full. It is rather empty; instead, it is full of clichés.Example:

Also, Russians have low national character. They lack discipline, order, focus, ethics, civic mindedness. They unruly and slovenly. They like to guzzle vodka, dance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks.

Can you trust anybody who wrote dance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks?Apparently the knowledge of "Anonymy" about Russians is based on movies. Example:

Russian elites didn’t feel much kinship with their own people. Consider the scene in Dr. Zhivago where the rich man’s daughter goes to France to study. She has nothing in common with the Russian folks.

To the best of my recollections, there is no such “scene” in the novel “Doctor Zhivago” by B. L. Pasternak. I did not watch Western-made movie “Doctor Zivago” (apparently pretty good movie, judging from numerous reviews.) But to make a conclusion about Russians from a scene of Western-made movie is laughable.

"Anonymy" wrote:

Consider Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein’s film. []

Ok, this film, made by world-famous Soviet director S. Eisenstein, reflects well the attitude of Stalin towards Ivan the Terrible and his deeds. How well it reflects the history is quite different question, which I am not ready to describe in written form. But the appeal by “Anonymy” to a movie in an essay supposedly of serious historical judgement, such appeal looks quite bleak.

Forget the question about IQ, which I tried to pose. I meant "Understanding Human History" by Michael Hart,https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Human-History-Michael-Hart/dp/1593680260/ No, not the level of "Anonymy".

Of course, they were not murdered. They were simply executed because they were all spies, all of them, and there was death penalty for spying. For example, almost all Poles living in Belarus were spies, and about 30% of Poles living in Ukraine. 85.000-110.000 shot Poles (plus few thousands other Soviet citizens) after perfectly just process, where proofs of their guilt were without any doubt.

Meaning 10% of all Poles living in USSR were shot as spies. Because almost all shot were grownup males, that would mean, then - conservatively speaking - one third of male Poles were shot as spies.

Personally or via direct order? None. With the possible exception of Sergei Kirov. Nor did Hitler, with the possible exception of Ernst Roehm. Nor, for that matter, did the fictional Michael Cordeleone -- Virgil Tattaglia excepted. You know the drill. Smart men, these. Never leave fingerprints.

The thing that counts for many Russians is that NO ONE brought Russia to greater power and glory than Stalin did, even though it owed to strange twists of fate.

Russia, due to its size and population and imperial possessions, always strove for greatness and great power status, but it always slipped away... until Stalin came along.

Russia was a serious underachiever. Its greatest triumph prior to Stalin was the defeat of Napoleon, but even that owed more to weather than Russian might. Napoleon defeated himself by overreach.

Russia failed to achieve true greatness because it was badly organized and backward. Also, paradoxically, its very advantage was its disadvantage. Having to rule over such vast territories, Russian power never consolidated into a iron fist like that of UK, Germany, or France. Russia was too busy overseeing its vast empire to ever develop a concentrated core power. This was also true of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe of China as well. Even though UK did became a great global power, it first consolidated power at home in its small island.

But Russia was a sprawling power from the beginning, a kind of blob. It failed to developed a proper spine. Its power spilled all over the place.

So, Russia got licked by Brits in Central Asia. Russia got beat by Japan, a non-white nation in 1905. And Russia lost badly in WWI.

Also, Russians have low national character. They lack discipline, order, focus, ethics, civic mindedness. They unruly and slovenly. They like to guzzle vodka, dance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks.

Prussia was small compared to Russia, but Prussians leaders were able to shape Prussians into a hardy, conscientious, orderly, and disciplined people.
Maybe Protestant ethos had something to do with it. Prussian elites and bureaucracy were quality, and they believed and trusted in the potential of their own people. So, they molded their Prussian folks into hardy fighting men, artisans, businessmen, scholars.

In contrast, maybe due to Byzantine and Oriental influences(of barbarian Mongols than civilized Chinese or Japanese), Russian elites became unfocused. If Protestantism emphasized direct link between human soul and God, Byzantinist Russian Orthodox created a vast labyrinth between God and man.
God could only be accessed through big bearded priests bellowing some tune like bears emerging from hibernation. Since individuals lacked direct access to God, ethics lagged in Russia. Ethics was just about listening to some bellowing priest who served the corrupt Czars.

But there were some visionary rulers in Russia like Peter.
But unlike Prussian rulers who ruled over quality people, Russian rulers looked at their own people and thought, "what a hopeless bunch." So, instead of trying to shape the populace into quality people, Russian rulers relied on foreign experts to rule stuff like government, institutions, and military. Consider how Russian business and government came to be filled with Germans. Russians figured, "We should get the Germans and French for brainy stuff, and we should just use the Russians as cattle." So, in a way, the Jewish contempt for the Russian masses wasn't all that different from that of Russian rulers.

Now, someone like Frederick the Great was a Francophile and preferred French language and culture to German, but he still respected fellow Prussians, high and low, for their conscientiousness and ability.

But Russian rulers saw their own people as dumb lowly cattle. Also, as Russian society became overly hierarchical, the Russian elites feared educating and raising the masses. So, serfdom continued in Russia for much longer. And even after serfdom, there was generally less faith in the people.

Russian elites didn't feel much kinship with their own people. Consider the scene in Dr. Zhivago where the rich man's daughter goes to France to study. She has nothing in common with the Russian folks. Also, many Russian rulers were not even Russian. Catherine the Great was some German ho who loved horses. She loved the power of being a Russian empress but she didn't give a crap about Russians. She made serfdom even tougher under her rule. So, even by blood, Russian monarchy were foreigners than Russians. They looked upon Russian masses as property than as fellow nationals. Of course, all kings felt that way back in the day, but there was more feeling of unity between British king and British folks than between Russian rulers and Russian masses, especially as the conduits between Russian rulers and Russian masses were the bellowing bearded priests whose singing could put you to sleep.

Given the attitude of Russian rulers toward Russian people, the theme of power in Russian history was rarely about justice or niceness. Consider Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein's film. He's sort of nutty, but he has the ruthlessness to rule with an iron fist and clobber the tarty Tartars and frighten the fruity Polacks.
He was Ivan the Terrifying, Ivan the Awesome, Ivan the World-Trembler. He wasn't a nice guy but he had the will to rule over a vast empire.

Ivan was Stalin's model. And it was under Stalin that, for the first and ONLY time, Russia fulfilled its ambition of becoming a truly great power.
Under Stalin in short time, Russian industrial output surpassed that of Germany, the great power of Europe. Even after the German mega-suckerpunch, reeling Russia gathered its senses and rolled back and smashed mighty Germany and, in the process, swallowed all of Eastern Europe. And Russia got total revenge against Japan by steamrolling into North China and whupping the Jappers in the finals days of WWII.
And soon, Russia had nukes too.
Under Stalin, Russia not only became a genuine great power but a superpower, one of the two greatest powers that ever existed, the other being USA.

This was truly an epic feat.

But there was a price to pay. There were millions of lives. There was the totalitarian system. The climate of fear and paranoia.
And even if Stalinism had been nicer, communism doesn't work in the long run. We saw how Russia, even under reforms under Khrushchev and then later Gorby, couldn't save communism.

Communism was too stifling of the individual soul and initiative.

But here's something ironic about Stalinism. Even though Stalin was one of the biggest killers if Russian history and a true modern tyrant, he did have a certain faith in the ability of the Russian masses. And this was different from the way of past rulers.
Past rulers figured that Russian masses were only good as cattle. Indeed, past Russian rulers tended to see Russians like Hitler did. Hitler dreamed of invading Russia and reducing Russian masses into illiterate slaves incapable of sophisticated human tasks. Of course, Russian rulers weren't as extreme as Hitler, but they still thought Russian masses would never amount to much.
Russian rulers thought the brainy stuff should be done by Germans and other foreigners, or even Jews.
And even Lenin and Trotsky felt this way. Lenin praised Jews and Germans but disdained dummy Russians. And one reason why Trotsky wanted to spread the revolution to Germany was because he respected German ability. He didn't think much could be done with Russian dummies.

In contrast, Stalin believed in the potential ability of the Russian masses. He expanded education and believed in the possibility of turning, almost overnight, sons of illiterate peasants into engineers, generals, doctors, scientists, teachers, and etc. And he half-succeeded in this. And there were real results and real transformation. So, even though Stalin was a mass killer and many innocents died, many young people of humble backgrounds really did their lives transformed.

The tragedy of all this is that even though Stalin educated and elevated many people from humble backgrounds, communism in the long run buries and stifles individual initiative. Ayn Rand might have been extreme and eccentric, but she was right that it takes individual freedom to make great breakthroughs. As Bill Buckley said of the Mona Lisa, "You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters."

If Stalin had been more of a nationalist-socialist who allowed some degree of individual freedom, USSR could have achieved much more. It may not have collapsed.

To this extent, the National Socialist model was better. And if Hitler had maintained an alliance with the USSR, and if USSR had taken cues from Germany, maybe the USSR could have developed a system that could have avoided collapse.

The Fascist model didn't collapse on its own. It was defeated cuz of reckless foreign policy and warmongering. In contrast, Soviet communism collapsed from its own weight, and Chinese communism changed into a national social-capitalist model that is close to fascism. Chinese, on their own, rejected Maoism.

Anyway, Russia needs to develop a model of having many strong men than being dependent on one strongman. This desire for a strongman betrays the Russian lack self-confidence, direction, focus, or discipline. They need someone to play master who will shape them, order them, and always tell them what to do.

A truly functional society has many little strong-men who, on their own, have a sense of direction and focus.

Look at Jews. Even a small Jewish minority community is filled with Jews with strong sense of identity, purpose, heritage, duty, obligation, and direction. So, even without leaders or strongman to guide them, Jews are doing stuff on their own. That's what makes them great.

Now, it's good for Russia to have good strong leaders, but in the end, Russians must find the strength in themselves so that, even without 'great leaders', they will do what's right.

America used to be like that before the egomaniacal Jews and homos took over.
Few US presidents qualify as great, and even the greatest never had the power of Stalin or even Putin. But America was always advancing and growing ceaselessly because so many American individuals were serious people about God, country, work, rule of law, business, culture, innovation, and etc. Sadly, that America seems to have passed. COMING APART is the new reality. The urban elites are getting richer and richer and cocooned in their decadent hipster privilege. White working class is turning into trash.
Recently, I went on a trip and saw so many 'white trash' types with tattoos and piercings. It was an ugly sight. It is becoming the new normal. And I also see more mudsharks and mulatto babies. Ewwwwww. That's the end of the white race right there.

Russia can become a truly good and great country, but it's going to take more than Putin or some strongman. Russians need a way to become many little strong-men than rely so heavily on the strongman as savior.

Chinese are harder-working than Russians. In this sense, Chinese are more like an army of little strong-men. Their achievements in the past 30 yrs have truly been amazing. But Chinese are not free men. Chinese individuals got work ethic, but they lack genuine values, conscience, and sense of individual free will.

Of course, Chinese have their own strongman mythology with Mao. Mao was far worse than Stalin who at least achieved certain things. Mao just destroyed everything he touched. Still, he was a genuinely powerful Chinese leader who was respected by the world community, and that counts for something to the Chinese after a century of humiliation when China was slapped around and seen as Sick Man of Asia.

I think the appeal of Stalin and Mao also has something to do with the soullessness of globalism. While Chinese today eat better and live better than in the past, there used to be big great themes that captured their imagination. During the imperialist era, Chinese dreamed of liberation and resistance. During WWII, they dreamed of beating back the Japanese dwarfs. And even though Mao was nuts, China under Mao had grand themes of revolution, redemption, purification, and etc. But since the economic rise of China, Chinese don't know what history is about anymore. The big themes are gone. End of History? Is it enough to just live for material goods?

So, harking back to Stalin and Mao is a harking back to a time when History was still alive as a battle of ideas and clash of civilizations.
But in the End of History era, things may be more peaceful but there seems to be no higher or bigger meaning to life but consumption.

But but but... things may be changing. Contrary to Francis Fukyomama, the End of History was not the triumph of Liberal Democracy. It was not the victory of abstract principles of free markets and democracy. Sure, those are still operative in politics and economics.
But the real driver of Power in the world is still ethnicity and identity. The West isn't so much about democracy, rule of law, and free markets as Jewish Ethnic Domination and Homo supremacist politics of identity.

The Wars in the Middle East were not about 'freedom' despite Bush-Cheney's bullshit. They were Wars for Israel. Jewish Tribalism and Homo neo-aristocratism are masked by call for 'democracy, human rights, and etc', but Jewish elites are really about Jewish power and homos are vain about being co-rulers of the world.

Democracy, free markets, and 'human rights' are all tools and instruments(and weapons) of those who control them. Every democracy serves the ethnic power that dominates it. After all, democracy can favor the 'far right' like Trump or 'far left' like Sanders. German democracy has been for open borders. Japanese democracy has been far less enthused about such. Israeli democracy is for Jewish nationalism. Turkish democracy is for Muslim power. In some nations, democracy pushed the nation to more 'left', and in others, democracy pushed it more 'right'.

Also, 'human rights' is not some abstract idea. It is a tool used by the powerful. So, US will invoke human rights against nations it sees as enemies but will overlook the same 'human rights' abuses in its allies. Look at Hillary calling Putin a 'new hitler' but going easy on Saudis. Also, this push for 'gay rights' is anything but. It goes way beyond asking the world to tolerate homos and let them do their homo stuff in their private lives. It is about making homomania as the new global faith for all nations. And it's about Jewish globalists ferreting out homos in every nation and using them as well-funded collaborators. It is no longer about 'gay rights' and all about Gay Might. Russia's NYET to the homo agenda has to do with the fact that the homo agenda is a proxy NGO tool of Globo-Jewdonia to subvert and control Russia.

Because of Jewish-and-Homo globalist ambitions, the End of History has come to an end. Tensions are mounting. US is moving against China and Russia.
And Jewish-and-Homo Wars in the Middle East have destroyed entire nations, and shitloads of Muslims are moving to EU and America, and there will be huge tensions.
Also, black African population is exploding and tons of blacks are moving to the West. Fukyomama's End of History idealism will NOT work with blacks. Blacks are too aggressive, too low IQ, too strong, too self-centered, and too sexually crazed to uphold Western values and ways. As EU fills up with Negroes and Muslims, things will fall apart. Now, white folks could rise up and push out Muslims and Negroes and save the West, but they won't. Why not? Because their minds and balls have been cucked and castrated by PC controlled by Jews and homos.

The endgame will be like the ending of ZARDOZ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YfozUcVRAk

I mean Merkel the louse is destroying Germany but Germans do nothing. Sweden has been ruined by Diversity, but PC is still the faith of that nation.
Hillary praises Merkel and calls for more illegals, but she has the advantage over Trump. So many whites still prefer her. (But then, part of her appeal is social status and prestige. Even though she poses as the candidate of 'social justice' and 'equality', many affluent and educated whites prefer her because the Democratic Party and 'progressivism' are associated with privilege, wealth, and prestige like Harvard, Yale, Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, art galleries, and etc. Of course, Hillaryism is really a hate crime against white middle class, working class, and poor class, but those people don't matter and are even dismissed by Cuckservatives.)

Anyway, history is heating up again because...

1. Jewish and Homo ambitions are global and insatiable. They are like a virus that must take over everything. And this means ramping up tensions against China and Russia. This may not lead to actual war, but Jews figure that without such fear-mongering against Russia and China, the globalist coalition might fall apart.
Jews have to scare all Europeans of Russian aggression to hold Nato and EU together.
US has to scare Asian nations about China to keep US military presence all over Asia and make Asian nations obey US policy. It is the GLUE.

2. Low white birthrates plus massive immigration will lead to rising tensions in the West. As many Muslim and esp African newcomers won't be able to contribute to much and will cause much trouble, there will be huge racial tensions down the line.

Fukyomama's dream of End of History might have materialized, at least for the West and East Asia, IF there had been closed borders and white majority rule in the West.
But as Jews and homos took elite power, they opened the borders wide. And as Jews and homos messed up the Middle East and broke the dam, tons of angry Muslims are pouring into the West. And all those blacks who got a taste of the West on the internet decided to go there as well by using guilt loopholes. Willfully strand themselves out in the sea, they have Europeans save them from their own faux-self-endangerment and then rampage around Europe. They are worse than Somali pirates. At least pirates are honest in their aggression. These 'refugees' are really pirates-in-refugee clothing who play helpless and cry for SOS in order jump onto the ship called Europe and pillage & rape it.

But they have their protectors in preening, vain, morally narcissistic Western elites who love to show how 'progressive' they are by expressing compassion. Of course, the likes of Merkel, Hillary, and George Clooney won't have to deal with the problems as they have it so good for themselves. They just live for approval from the Jews who, by the way, are for Israel remaining a Jewish state.

Anyway, big things are underfoot, and suddenly Russians and Chinese may have Big Themes to struggle for once again. What we have now is a Jewish War on Russia with homos as shock troops. There is no doubt about it. The so-called 'new cold war' is a Jewish War on Russia. I mean which ethnic group has been agitating against Russia? If US and EU had no Jews, there would be no Jewish War on Russia.

Jews love their total control in the US, and Jews hate China and Russia as 'great power' models that are defiant of the US, won't bend over to homo minority supremacism, and where the rulers and ruled are both of the same people.

Defense of Motherland from the GLOB will be the new great struggle of the 21st century. But for this to happen, we need to identify the enemy. It is the globalist Jews and their homo allies. Of course, not all Jews are like this nor endorse it, but the Jewish-powers-that-be in media, academia, and government overwhelmingly support it.

Putin is very close to Jewish oligarchs. Also, because Jew-worship is such a fixture of the West, he is loathe to spell out the Jewish power in all this.

But real change can only when the force that is creating the most problems around the world is identified. It's like Michael in GODFATHER II had to smoke out who the real enemy was. It was Hyman Roth.

Esteemed Mr. Anonymy:
Unfortunately I did not read your very informative post yet.
I am going to do that.

What I am surprised about, is that such a detailed geopolitical review does not contain any mention of IQ: Intellectual Quotient.

I hope to return to the discussion, after reading you post.
Your truly, I.f.f.U.

So if we compare him against potential alternatives, the people who could have seized power in his place after Lenin’s death, my feeling is he was the “lesser evil” and that’s to his credit. But perhaps someone can show me what would have been a better trajectory for Russia at this juncture (who, how, realistically?)

Hard to say, but I think a fair argument could be that things might have gone better if the Bukharin-Rykov bloc that won out in the factional struggles of the 1920s.

* They were the strongest supporters of the NEP, which had far better long-term prospects than central planning.
* Bukharin opposed (and privately condemned) collectivization.
* Bukharin was personally popular within the Communist Party (and not in a creepy culty way like with Lenin and Stalin)
* Highly intellectual, relatively moderate, unlikely to devolve into totalitarian dictatorship.
* Had connections with European Social Democratic parties. This is very alt history-like, but this might have made (1) the German SPD less utterly allergic to the KPD which would have greatly complicated the Nazis' rise to power, and (2) probably made the Nazis less popular to boot as the perception of the Soviet threat would not have been as dire.
* Was not an ideologue committed to world revolution and in fact was the guy who came up with the "socialism in one country" concept once the prospects of world revolution faded away.
* As a popular moderate without dictatorial and paranoiac tendencies, unlikely to mass purge the Red Army (and replace many of them with uneducated yesmen).
* The peasants would not have been so unhappy with the regime as under Stalin, and thus in the event of a war with the Third Reich, Soviet soldiers would have likely been less ready to surrender en masse as they did in summer 1941.
* The Russia historians (and prominent Russophile) Stephen Cohen is of the opinion Bukharin would have been much better than Stalin.
* Incidentally, Bukharin and Rykov were the only ethnic Russians amongst Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Stalin. One important if not very PC and vastly underexplored factor is to what extent the various ethnic minorities in the early Soviet state were really acting on petty grievances against Russians (even subconsciously) as opposed to the interests of the Soviet state or even the Marxist project as such.

Disadvantages:

* Economic development would have been less industry-heavy (if lopsidedly so) during the 1930s. But, lopsided or not, it is a fact that industrial power is what matters most in a Great Power war.

Although the disadvantage is a very significant one, I think the advantages easily outweight them however.

You alts and semi-alts seem to have a great-man theory of history. You really think that picking the individual leader determines historical consequences. A result is that you project a particular comrade’s policies into the future, where most of the major figures – Stalin and Bukharin most of all – were erratic. Bukharin had advocated extending the proletarian revolution internationally by military means, accepting the risk of annihilation by the Germans and opposing Brest. This debate tied up the Bolshevik Central Committee of months and led to the ban on factions so propitious to Stalin. Bukharin’s “socialism is one country” was a complete about face.

Similarly, Stalin had been allied with Stalin in favoring extension of the NEP, against Trotsky who called for rapid industrialization. In 1928, Stalin did an about face, dramatically outflanking Trotsky on the pace of industrial growth and of collectivization.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am not an uncritical admirer of Tsarist Russia like you are a Stalinist ideologue. Sorry about that.

Not critical - but admirer? And me - "a Stalinist ideologue"? Top kek!

And going up very quickly, reaching 38%-45% (two different estimates) by 1917. By that period 80% of Russian schoolchildren were or had been in school so mass literacy within another generation was inevitable. It is a legitimate criticism of the Tsarist period that they were slow to start on mass literacy campaigns relative to the advanced parts of Europe, but it is wrong to claim that it was not in full swing by the 20th century.

38-43% according to some estimates (not concrete data) - and only in European part of the Empire. With huge differences between Baltic gubernias (70-78% in some parts) vs the rest of Russia's proper, and men vs women.

As for the fantastic number of 80% schoolchildren - can I see the source? 1911 report by the Ministry of Education shows only 43% of kids from 8 to 12 enrolling in schools. The same report puts the literacy level of the kids of that category (8 to 12) at 30.1% (in cities - 46.6%% in rural areas, 28.3%). And that's mainly boys - girls education was even worse.

And this "hope" for some educational miracle especially amazing, given that 1926 census puts the level of literacy at 56.6%. And in 1939 - 87.3%.

"Дотянулся, проклятый Сталин" (c)

No I haven’t because it did no such thing.

But yes the Bolsheviks were more egalitarian doing away with degenerate bourgeois things like entrance exams entirely (with only Stalin putting an end to that particular madness in the early 1930s) while exiling evil bourgeois reactionary eaters like Sikorsky and Zworykin.

- Zworykin - served in White Army (volunteer). In 1919 was already in New York, when Kolchak's government fell.

None of them was exiled. They chose to emigrate. Apparently, Stalin, Lenin and all Juden-Bolsheviks were also responsible for their choices?

This blog is not about my family history and I am certainly not going to engage in conversations about that with a sovok freak such as yourself.

"Sovok freak". Again - top kek, AK! This "sovok freak" is Russian, born in the USSR and raised in modern Russia, who still lives there. Kinda someone who can reasonably claim to represent a large part of demographic in his views.

And whom represent you?

” Zworykin – served in White Army (volunteer). In 1919 was already in New York, when Kolchak’s government fell.

None of them was exiled. They chose to emigrate. Apparently, Stalin, Lenin and all Juden-Bolsheviks were also responsible for their choices?”

You are equivalent to the American leftists who say that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz “lied” about their families fleeing the Cuban Revolution, because their parents and/or others in the family left before Comrade Fidel’s “triumphal” arrival in Havana in late 1959. Revolutions don’t happen overnight. Oh wait, it’s “unpatriotic” to abandon your “country” when “enlightened” Marxists turn it into hell above ground. The definition of patriotism as paying homage to the powers that be is a primary tool of tyrants everywhere.

Re-80%: “were or had been in school.” The 1911 School Census showed 45% of children were in school, rising to 51% in 1914 (58% in European Russia). However, during this period the average period of schooling was short, so a large percentage of the 100%-51%=49% figure would already be either out of school or preparing to enter it. There are no systemic statistics for this, but local data such as from Moscow province (not city) in the 1890s (!) show that 90% of all children were currently enrolled, already schooled, or not yet enrolled.

Just wha… How can you possibly extrapolate one figure to the whole of Russia is beyond me. Ballsy move, sure. But totally groundless, I’m afraid.

You also conveniently ignore that the statistic from the 1911 report covers only kids aged 8-12 and talks about primarily schools. A lot of worker class families could afford for themselves just that – after which kids (guided by Holy Invisible Hand of the Market (tm)) had to find a job. The phenomenon of half-literate or, in fact, illiterate people due to fact that after a short stint in the school their reading/writing capability simply atrophied due to lack of use is both documented and was ubiquitous.

Why you are just handwaving the lack of women literacy is also – “oh-so-convenient”! Bloody commies – teaching babas how to read!

Although the schooling period was short if expanding, it must have been adequate at instilling basic literacy; by 1914, the literacy rate for army recruits was verging on 70%. {Source: National Literacy Campaigns edited by Robert Arnove and Harvey Graff}.

Ah, yes! I KNEW you will cite this figure!

Let’s start with the G. Buschnell’s estimate that only 25-30% of the draft-age men (and you said it already that men had more chances to receive education) were indeed drafted. Next – the criterion of literacy. In that case it was simply the ability to write down you own last name. Even according to this very lax definition more than 25% of the new recruits were completely illiterate.

If we check the ‘Military-statistical Army almanac of 1912’ than the number of fully literate (not counting “semi-literate”) was only 47.41%. Later, after several years of war and more and more successive drafts the level of complete illiteracy reached 61%. This is much more representative of the general state of the education within Russian Empire, than some wild extrapolations.

Incidentally, it took the Soviet Union until 1927 to get back to prewar school enrollment rates.

Yeah, it’s as if they hadn’t rebuild the country after the Great War, 2 Revolutions, Interventions, Civil War, revolts, international blockade… Or, wait!

Traitorous filth, how dare they choose emigration over the joys of working from home (in a gulag).

My-my! And this is the Great AKarlin, the Winged Horror of Russia Watchers-sphere! Resorting to strawmanning – how quaint!

I never called them “traitorous filth” – so don’t put words in my mouth. Yes, they emigrated – losing any claim to be called “Russian scientists” due to that. “Russia-born”, sure. But no longer Russia.

And some of the scientists didn’t run away, tail behind their legs. Some émigrés, in fact, returned back to contribute to their countries future. Completely alien and illogical behavior for some, especially for those who thinks that freedom equals to 300 distinct brands of sausage sold at your grocery store.

Another strawman is trying to portray that sharashkas were the only option for scientists to conduct their research in the Soviet Union. Were those like Tupolev and Korolev “employed” by the state while serving their prison term? Yeah, sure. Were _some_ of them innocent? Yes, some were. Still, trying to focus on bad stuff instead and totally ignoring all positive is more befitting liberast and Brighton Beach kvetching team.

Oh, and correct term is GULag – Glavnoye Upravleniye LAGerey. It wasn’t a “place” or “prison”. I thought you knew that.

I suppose you are also consider Lysenko to be a great scientist maligned by bourgeois fascist revisionists.

No, I don’t. But I suppose you are not arguing with me, but with a strawman, that exists only in your imagination.

“Completely alien and illogical behavior for some, especially for those who thinks that freedom equals to 300 distinct brands of sausage sold at your grocery store.”

The people of Venezuela would like at least ONE brand of sausage to be available.

You are equivalent to the American leftists who say that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz “lied” about their families fleeing the Cuban Revolution, because their parents and/or others in the family left before Comrade Fidel’s “triumphal” arrival in Havana in late 1959. Revolutions don’t happen overnight. Oh wait, it’s “unpatriotic” to abandon your “country” when “enlightened” Marxists turn it into hell above ground. The definition of patriotism as paying homage to the powers that be is a primary tool of tyrants everywhere.

And many more (read - most of his countrymen) didn't run. It's now ruled by their descendants, not his. And I don't care about your American pseudo-left.

The people of Venezuela would like at least ONE brand of sausage to be available.

Ouch! Edgy! Can you prove that there are currently no brands of sausage to sell in Venezuela?

Anyone his secret police agents could get their hands on.

What "secret police" in the USSR? You are just repeating some buzz-words, totally meaningless.

Of course, they were not murdered. They were simply executed because they were all spies, all of them, and there was death penalty for spying. For example, almost all Poles living in Belarus were spies, and about 30% of Poles living in Ukraine. 85.000-110.000 shot Poles (plus few thousands other Soviet citizens) after perfectly just process, where proofs of their guilt were without any doubt.

Meaning 10% of all Poles living in USSR were shot as spies. Because almost all shot were grownup males, that would mean, then – conservatively speaking – one third of male Poles were shot as spies.

Wow! Pediwikia is now an unbiased source?! Amazing! How about citing something more reliable?

For example, almost all Poles living in Belarus were spies, and about 30% of Poles living in Ukraine. 85.000-110.000 shot Poles (plus few thousands other Soviet citizens) after perfectly just process, where proofs of their guilt were without any doubt.

Of course, not everyone of them was a spy - as was proved by te-habilitation process which began after Ezhov's ousting. Does it signify that the rest of them were innocent though simply because they were Polish? What, Poland wasn't antagonistic to the USSR and didn't employ spies and saboteurs against the Soviet Union, often utilizing local poles, some of whom even had relatives in the Old-New Country?

Obviously, I don’t deny the famine and mass executions were completely unnecessary

That presumes that Holodomor was artificially created. It wasn't

As for the the "mass executions" - care to elaborate here? There was such a thing like "execution/death penalty" and some crimes were punishable with said execution in the USSR. Are you saying they were not really a crimes? Or that you are against the death penalty?

I think the previous poster is talking about acts that were not really crimes, yes. Also innocents who were executed unjustly, the condemned denied due process and a fair trial, and those who were outright murdered. All of which happen to some degree in every country, but moreso in Stalinist Russia. Read Robert Conquest on The Great Terror.

Nonsense. Joseph Stalin embodied the Jewish-controlled Bolshevik Russia. He was a mass-killer. He murdered over 7 million Christians and Muslims in Ukraine and Crimean Muslim Tatars. Under Stalin Jews were prominent in the mass murder and imprisonment of Christians and Muslims – in fact, Slezkine himself even uses the phrase that the Jews were “Stalin’s willing executioners.”

Stalin destroyed hundreds of churches and mosques but never touched a single synagogue.

Stalin even established the very first autonomous Jewish state in Russia in 1934.

It's true that Lenin made anti-semitism a crime in the Soviet Union. Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents to succeed Lenin, and these included Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. As Slezkine says, in his excellent book, Jews occupied the top positions in the NKVD before World War II. Many of the Politburo members, outside Kaganovich, were also married to Jews or had Jewish relatives.

However, after World War II, Stalin purged most NKVD/KGB members who had Jewish connections. This was particularly true after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948. In addition, Stalin limited upper level Jewish positions in the Communist Party. He forced Kalinin, and Molatov to inform on their Jewish wives and Kaganovich to agree to his brother's execution. Stalin was getting ready for a purge of Jews, who were implicated by him in the "Doctors' Plot" It was only his death in 1953 that prevented a pogrom of massive proportions.

Stalin really trusted no one, particularly the Jews, of whom he once said "we need their brains"
He was a paranoid psychopath, but a genius politician and world class tactician. He was one of the ablest mass murderers in human history.

Freud did not conduct experiments. I don’t think he was even in the science business. He wrote about single cases he had dealt with.

After writing this I thought "did I misremember this? Was it really this bad?". So I went searching online. This is about psychoanalysis:

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/beystehner.html

...Freud fully presented only twelve cases, but he mentioned over one hundred minor cases.

It's my impression that Freud's writing went like this: "I had a patient A who complained of such and such problems and I told him this and he told me that..." And then Freud would draw some general point from that story. And I think these numbers - 12 major cases and 100 minor ones - refer to the patients with whom he worked out psychoanalysis.

Obviously this is not science. These are stories he told about some patients he'd seen.

I've never read any life advice books - Tony Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Dale Carnegie, Rich Dad, Poor Dad - I only know that stuff from advertising. But I would imagine their methodology to be similar. "I knew a troubled young woman who had such and such problems" and so on.

Obviously the Chicken Soup for the Soul books can't possibly be as crazy as the Oedipal complex and penis envy. This is probably like the difference between Harlequin novels and po-mo trash like that Pynchon novel I recently reviewed on my little blog. Freud was probably perverse on purpose and Tony Robbins is probably just stupid. But neither is a plausible source of truth.

Freud was more of a mythologist and literary critic. His patients were there to inspire his fancy. He was a bit of a confessor/social worker, too. But mostly it was about the absurd and unrealistic theories he crafted, and which were of course never tested. He should’ve written tragedies, or something.

You ever read his cases? They’re ridiculous. Any current psychologist would be laughed out of the room for bringing up his unexpurgated thoughts and methods. Not that they’re scientists, either. But they know a little better. His good ideas, or at least the ones that are still acceptable, probably came from someone else.

I especially hate how people pretend he cane up with the Unconscious. As if everyone before then considered people did everything deliberately, and were omniscient about their thoughts, like gods. Darwin didn’t invent evolution, and Freud didn’t invent the unconscious. Wittgenstein came up with a fun name for the unconscious, by the way. He called it Mr. I-Don’t-Know. Try replacing psychologists’ reference to the unconscious or subconscious with “Mr. I-Don’t-Know. It’s funny.

It was Eduard von Hartmann who first made the subconscious a household word. But as you say, it wasn't an original conception even of his, let alone of Freud. Hartmann was developing ideas of his master Schopenhauer, and so on and so on.

Doubt it. I mean I haven't read him not am I much interested in him and so far as I'm aware most of this theories have either discredited or surpassed but ultimately I don't buy that its possible for someone to be the third most eminent psychologist of the 20th century (via Human Accomplishment-like quantification) while being a total quack.

I doubt there was more pseudoscience in the USSR than in the West. Lewontin’s fallacy, Steven Jay Gould’s fraud.

Possibly by the 1970s-80s. (That said, there was a good reason why throughout the Soviet period all the very brightest and most conscientious people tended to go into the hard sciences, especially math and physics, where ideology is nigh impossible). Also while I agree Gould is pretty much a fraud through and through, Lewontin has done a lot of genuine work. Not only is Lysenko a complete fraud, but his actions actually destroyed (in the most literal sense of the word) dozens of lives.

Of course it’s possible to be the anything-most accomplished psychologist and be a quack. Because psychology is a bogus field. Quacks are good at quackery.

Freud was more of a mythologist and literary critic. His patients were there to inspire his fancy. He was a bit of a confessor/social worker, too. But mostly it was about the absurd and unrealistic theories he crafted, and which were of course never tested. He should've written tragedies, or something.

You ever read his cases? They're ridiculous. Any current psychologist would be laughed out of the room for bringing up his unexpurgated thoughts and methods. Not that they're scientists, either. But they know a little better. His good ideas, or at least the ones that are still acceptable, probably came from someone else.

I especially hate how people pretend he cane up with the Unconscious. As if everyone before then considered people did everything deliberately, and were omniscient about their thoughts, like gods. Darwin didn't invent evolution, and Freud didn't invent the unconscious. Wittgenstein came up with a fun name for the unconscious, by the way. He called it Mr. I-Don't-Know. Try replacing psychologists' reference to the unconscious or subconscious with "Mr. I-Don't-Know. It's funny.

I do like some Freudianisms. Projection is good.

It was Eduard von Hartmann who first made the subconscious a household word. But as you say, it wasn’t an original conception even of his, let alone of Freud. Hartmann was developing ideas of his master Schopenhauer, and so on and so on.

Russian support for Stalin has nothing to do with tribalism because he is not popular just in that country. Russian support for Stalin is based on collective memory of the people where the positive outweighs the negative by a large margin. His popularity persists in spite of ceaseless efforts to push Stalin into oblivion. If he were only partly the monster that he is portrayed to be I doubt it very much that his popularity would be that high. This simple fact seems to escape all those talkative and verbose would be experts on everything.

Personally or via direct order? None. With the possible exception of Sergei Kirov. Nor did Hitler, with the possible exception of Ernst Roehm. Nor, for that matter, did the fictional Michael Cordeleone — Virgil Tattaglia excepted. You know the drill. Smart men, these. Never leave fingerprints.

How cold have a person who loved Russians more than they loved themselves kill so many of them? It’s a big mystery. Stalin was a big contradiction. He adopted himself into the Russian nation, spoke the language with a Georgian accent for the rest of his life, sent at least hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the gulags, and yet he was a bigger Russian than most of them.

When Hitler rejected his feelers about possible truce after the initial onslaught, opting instead for war of extermination against the “subhumans”, Stalin apparently took great offense at this, and said something like: “Who is he calling “subhumans” – the great Russian people? He wants a war of extermination? He shall have it”.

His love for the Russians was on display again at the victory parade at the end of WW2 when the Red Army units were throwing captured Nazi flags and banners at his feet. For the great victory apparently he thanked only the “Great Russians”, leaving out the rest of the nationalities making up almost half of the Soviet Union.

I don’t think that the ambiguity about Stalin among ordinary Russians will be resolved any time soon. He did some horrible things to them, but maybe that though love was necessary and in the final analysis, he did won a war which made a difference between survival and annihilation.

There was no war of extermination against the “subhumans”, that’s laughable propaganda.

There are the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there are the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:http://www.codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here:

We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000
But note that there is not a single verifiable excavated mass grave that can actually be SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka) even though Jews claim to know exactly where these allegedly enormous mass graves are.

The massive numbers of so called “eyewitne$$es” are living testimony to fraudulence of the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

CODOH has not debunked holocaust. I ahve already discussed with mutiples holocaust denialists on unz.com and they were not able to debunk anything.
Nazis did wage war of extermination against Poland and Russia, in which Poles, Belarussians, Ukrainians and Russians were murdered without pity in tens of thousands.

The thing that counts for many Russians is that NO ONE brought Russia to greater power and glory than Stalin did, even though it owed to strange twists of fate.

Russia, due to its size and population and imperial possessions, always strove for greatness and great power status, but it always slipped away... until Stalin came along.

Russia was a serious underachiever. Its greatest triumph prior to Stalin was the defeat of Napoleon, but even that owed more to weather than Russian might. Napoleon defeated himself by overreach.

Russia failed to achieve true greatness because it was badly organized and backward. Also, paradoxically, its very advantage was its disadvantage. Having to rule over such vast territories, Russian power never consolidated into a iron fist like that of UK, Germany, or France. Russia was too busy overseeing its vast empire to ever develop a concentrated core power. This was also true of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe of China as well. Even though UK did became a great global power, it first consolidated power at home in its small island.

But Russia was a sprawling power from the beginning, a kind of blob. It failed to developed a proper spine. Its power spilled all over the place.

So, Russia got licked by Brits in Central Asia. Russia got beat by Japan, a non-white nation in 1905. And Russia lost badly in WWI.

Also, Russians have low national character. They lack discipline, order, focus, ethics, civic mindedness. They unruly and slovenly. They like to guzzle vodka, dance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks.

Prussia was small compared to Russia, but Prussians leaders were able to shape Prussians into a hardy, conscientious, orderly, and disciplined people.
Maybe Protestant ethos had something to do with it. Prussian elites and bureaucracy were quality, and they believed and trusted in the potential of their own people. So, they molded their Prussian folks into hardy fighting men, artisans, businessmen, scholars.

In contrast, maybe due to Byzantine and Oriental influences(of barbarian Mongols than civilized Chinese or Japanese), Russian elites became unfocused. If Protestantism emphasized direct link between human soul and God, Byzantinist Russian Orthodox created a vast labyrinth between God and man.
God could only be accessed through big bearded priests bellowing some tune like bears emerging from hibernation. Since individuals lacked direct access to God, ethics lagged in Russia. Ethics was just about listening to some bellowing priest who served the corrupt Czars.

But there were some visionary rulers in Russia like Peter.
But unlike Prussian rulers who ruled over quality people, Russian rulers looked at their own people and thought, "what a hopeless bunch." So, instead of trying to shape the populace into quality people, Russian rulers relied on foreign experts to rule stuff like government, institutions, and military. Consider how Russian business and government came to be filled with Germans. Russians figured, "We should get the Germans and French for brainy stuff, and we should just use the Russians as cattle." So, in a way, the Jewish contempt for the Russian masses wasn't all that different from that of Russian rulers.

Now, someone like Frederick the Great was a Francophile and preferred French language and culture to German, but he still respected fellow Prussians, high and low, for their conscientiousness and ability.

But Russian rulers saw their own people as dumb lowly cattle. Also, as Russian society became overly hierarchical, the Russian elites feared educating and raising the masses. So, serfdom continued in Russia for much longer. And even after serfdom, there was generally less faith in the people.

Russian elites didn't feel much kinship with their own people. Consider the scene in Dr. Zhivago where the rich man's daughter goes to France to study. She has nothing in common with the Russian folks. Also, many Russian rulers were not even Russian. Catherine the Great was some German ho who loved horses. She loved the power of being a Russian empress but she didn't give a crap about Russians. She made serfdom even tougher under her rule. So, even by blood, Russian monarchy were foreigners than Russians. They looked upon Russian masses as property than as fellow nationals. Of course, all kings felt that way back in the day, but there was more feeling of unity between British king and British folks than between Russian rulers and Russian masses, especially as the conduits between Russian rulers and Russian masses were the bellowing bearded priests whose singing could put you to sleep.

Given the attitude of Russian rulers toward Russian people, the theme of power in Russian history was rarely about justice or niceness. Consider Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein's film. He's sort of nutty, but he has the ruthlessness to rule with an iron fist and clobber the tarty Tartars and frighten the fruity Polacks.
He was Ivan the Terrifying, Ivan the Awesome, Ivan the World-Trembler. He wasn't a nice guy but he had the will to rule over a vast empire.

Ivan was Stalin's model. And it was under Stalin that, for the first and ONLY time, Russia fulfilled its ambition of becoming a truly great power.
Under Stalin in short time, Russian industrial output surpassed that of Germany, the great power of Europe. Even after the German mega-suckerpunch, reeling Russia gathered its senses and rolled back and smashed mighty Germany and, in the process, swallowed all of Eastern Europe. And Russia got total revenge against Japan by steamrolling into North China and whupping the Jappers in the finals days of WWII.
And soon, Russia had nukes too.
Under Stalin, Russia not only became a genuine great power but a superpower, one of the two greatest powers that ever existed, the other being USA.

This was truly an epic feat.

But there was a price to pay. There were millions of lives. There was the totalitarian system. The climate of fear and paranoia.
And even if Stalinism had been nicer, communism doesn't work in the long run. We saw how Russia, even under reforms under Khrushchev and then later Gorby, couldn't save communism.

Communism was too stifling of the individual soul and initiative.

But here's something ironic about Stalinism. Even though Stalin was one of the biggest killers if Russian history and a true modern tyrant, he did have a certain faith in the ability of the Russian masses. And this was different from the way of past rulers.
Past rulers figured that Russian masses were only good as cattle. Indeed, past Russian rulers tended to see Russians like Hitler did. Hitler dreamed of invading Russia and reducing Russian masses into illiterate slaves incapable of sophisticated human tasks. Of course, Russian rulers weren't as extreme as Hitler, but they still thought Russian masses would never amount to much.
Russian rulers thought the brainy stuff should be done by Germans and other foreigners, or even Jews.
And even Lenin and Trotsky felt this way. Lenin praised Jews and Germans but disdained dummy Russians. And one reason why Trotsky wanted to spread the revolution to Germany was because he respected German ability. He didn't think much could be done with Russian dummies.

In contrast, Stalin believed in the potential ability of the Russian masses. He expanded education and believed in the possibility of turning, almost overnight, sons of illiterate peasants into engineers, generals, doctors, scientists, teachers, and etc. And he half-succeeded in this. And there were real results and real transformation. So, even though Stalin was a mass killer and many innocents died, many young people of humble backgrounds really did their lives transformed.

The tragedy of all this is that even though Stalin educated and elevated many people from humble backgrounds, communism in the long run buries and stifles individual initiative. Ayn Rand might have been extreme and eccentric, but she was right that it takes individual freedom to make great breakthroughs. As Bill Buckley said of the Mona Lisa, "You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters."

If Stalin had been more of a nationalist-socialist who allowed some degree of individual freedom, USSR could have achieved much more. It may not have collapsed.

To this extent, the National Socialist model was better. And if Hitler had maintained an alliance with the USSR, and if USSR had taken cues from Germany, maybe the USSR could have developed a system that could have avoided collapse.

The Fascist model didn't collapse on its own. It was defeated cuz of reckless foreign policy and warmongering. In contrast, Soviet communism collapsed from its own weight, and Chinese communism changed into a national social-capitalist model that is close to fascism. Chinese, on their own, rejected Maoism.

Anyway, Russia needs to develop a model of having many strong men than being dependent on one strongman. This desire for a strongman betrays the Russian lack self-confidence, direction, focus, or discipline. They need someone to play master who will shape them, order them, and always tell them what to do.

A truly functional society has many little strong-men who, on their own, have a sense of direction and focus.

Look at Jews. Even a small Jewish minority community is filled with Jews with strong sense of identity, purpose, heritage, duty, obligation, and direction. So, even without leaders or strongman to guide them, Jews are doing stuff on their own. That's what makes them great.

Now, it's good for Russia to have good strong leaders, but in the end, Russians must find the strength in themselves so that, even without 'great leaders', they will do what's right.

America used to be like that before the egomaniacal Jews and homos took over.
Few US presidents qualify as great, and even the greatest never had the power of Stalin or even Putin. But America was always advancing and growing ceaselessly because so many American individuals were serious people about God, country, work, rule of law, business, culture, innovation, and etc. Sadly, that America seems to have passed. COMING APART is the new reality. The urban elites are getting richer and richer and cocooned in their decadent hipster privilege. White working class is turning into trash.
Recently, I went on a trip and saw so many 'white trash' types with tattoos and piercings. It was an ugly sight. It is becoming the new normal. And I also see more mudsharks and mulatto babies. Ewwwwww. That's the end of the white race right there.

Russia can become a truly good and great country, but it's going to take more than Putin or some strongman. Russians need a way to become many little strong-men than rely so heavily on the strongman as savior.

Chinese are harder-working than Russians. In this sense, Chinese are more like an army of little strong-men. Their achievements in the past 30 yrs have truly been amazing. But Chinese are not free men. Chinese individuals got work ethic, but they lack genuine values, conscience, and sense of individual free will.

Of course, Chinese have their own strongman mythology with Mao. Mao was far worse than Stalin who at least achieved certain things. Mao just destroyed everything he touched. Still, he was a genuinely powerful Chinese leader who was respected by the world community, and that counts for something to the Chinese after a century of humiliation when China was slapped around and seen as Sick Man of Asia.

I think the appeal of Stalin and Mao also has something to do with the soullessness of globalism. While Chinese today eat better and live better than in the past, there used to be big great themes that captured their imagination. During the imperialist era, Chinese dreamed of liberation and resistance. During WWII, they dreamed of beating back the Japanese dwarfs. And even though Mao was nuts, China under Mao had grand themes of revolution, redemption, purification, and etc. But since the economic rise of China, Chinese don't know what history is about anymore. The big themes are gone. End of History? Is it enough to just live for material goods?

So, harking back to Stalin and Mao is a harking back to a time when History was still alive as a battle of ideas and clash of civilizations.
But in the End of History era, things may be more peaceful but there seems to be no higher or bigger meaning to life but consumption.

But but but... things may be changing. Contrary to Francis Fukyomama, the End of History was not the triumph of Liberal Democracy. It was not the victory of abstract principles of free markets and democracy. Sure, those are still operative in politics and economics.
But the real driver of Power in the world is still ethnicity and identity. The West isn't so much about democracy, rule of law, and free markets as Jewish Ethnic Domination and Homo supremacist politics of identity.

The Wars in the Middle East were not about 'freedom' despite Bush-Cheney's bullshit. They were Wars for Israel. Jewish Tribalism and Homo neo-aristocratism are masked by call for 'democracy, human rights, and etc', but Jewish elites are really about Jewish power and homos are vain about being co-rulers of the world.

Democracy, free markets, and 'human rights' are all tools and instruments(and weapons) of those who control them. Every democracy serves the ethnic power that dominates it. After all, democracy can favor the 'far right' like Trump or 'far left' like Sanders. German democracy has been for open borders. Japanese democracy has been far less enthused about such. Israeli democracy is for Jewish nationalism. Turkish democracy is for Muslim power. In some nations, democracy pushed the nation to more 'left', and in others, democracy pushed it more 'right'.

Also, 'human rights' is not some abstract idea. It is a tool used by the powerful. So, US will invoke human rights against nations it sees as enemies but will overlook the same 'human rights' abuses in its allies. Look at Hillary calling Putin a 'new hitler' but going easy on Saudis. Also, this push for 'gay rights' is anything but. It goes way beyond asking the world to tolerate homos and let them do their homo stuff in their private lives. It is about making homomania as the new global faith for all nations. And it's about Jewish globalists ferreting out homos in every nation and using them as well-funded collaborators. It is no longer about 'gay rights' and all about Gay Might. Russia's NYET to the homo agenda has to do with the fact that the homo agenda is a proxy NGO tool of Globo-Jewdonia to subvert and control Russia.

Because of Jewish-and-Homo globalist ambitions, the End of History has come to an end. Tensions are mounting. US is moving against China and Russia.
And Jewish-and-Homo Wars in the Middle East have destroyed entire nations, and shitloads of Muslims are moving to EU and America, and there will be huge tensions.
Also, black African population is exploding and tons of blacks are moving to the West. Fukyomama's End of History idealism will NOT work with blacks. Blacks are too aggressive, too low IQ, too strong, too self-centered, and too sexually crazed to uphold Western values and ways. As EU fills up with Negroes and Muslims, things will fall apart. Now, white folks could rise up and push out Muslims and Negroes and save the West, but they won't. Why not? Because their minds and balls have been cucked and castrated by PC controlled by Jews and homos.

The endgame will be like the ending of ZARDOZ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YfozUcVRAk

I mean Merkel the louse is destroying Germany but Germans do nothing. Sweden has been ruined by Diversity, but PC is still the faith of that nation.
Hillary praises Merkel and calls for more illegals, but she has the advantage over Trump. So many whites still prefer her. (But then, part of her appeal is social status and prestige. Even though she poses as the candidate of 'social justice' and 'equality', many affluent and educated whites prefer her because the Democratic Party and 'progressivism' are associated with privilege, wealth, and prestige like Harvard, Yale, Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, art galleries, and etc. Of course, Hillaryism is really a hate crime against white middle class, working class, and poor class, but those people don't matter and are even dismissed by Cuckservatives.)

Anyway, history is heating up again because...

1. Jewish and Homo ambitions are global and insatiable. They are like a virus that must take over everything. And this means ramping up tensions against China and Russia. This may not lead to actual war, but Jews figure that without such fear-mongering against Russia and China, the globalist coalition might fall apart.
Jews have to scare all Europeans of Russian aggression to hold Nato and EU together.
US has to scare Asian nations about China to keep US military presence all over Asia and make Asian nations obey US policy. It is the GLUE.

2. Low white birthrates plus massive immigration will lead to rising tensions in the West. As many Muslim and esp African newcomers won't be able to contribute to much and will cause much trouble, there will be huge racial tensions down the line.

Fukyomama's dream of End of History might have materialized, at least for the West and East Asia, IF there had been closed borders and white majority rule in the West.
But as Jews and homos took elite power, they opened the borders wide. And as Jews and homos messed up the Middle East and broke the dam, tons of angry Muslims are pouring into the West. And all those blacks who got a taste of the West on the internet decided to go there as well by using guilt loopholes. Willfully strand themselves out in the sea, they have Europeans save them from their own faux-self-endangerment and then rampage around Europe. They are worse than Somali pirates. At least pirates are honest in their aggression. These 'refugees' are really pirates-in-refugee clothing who play helpless and cry for SOS in order jump onto the ship called Europe and pillage & rape it.

But they have their protectors in preening, vain, morally narcissistic Western elites who love to show how 'progressive' they are by expressing compassion. Of course, the likes of Merkel, Hillary, and George Clooney won't have to deal with the problems as they have it so good for themselves. They just live for approval from the Jews who, by the way, are for Israel remaining a Jewish state.

Anyway, big things are underfoot, and suddenly Russians and Chinese may have Big Themes to struggle for once again. What we have now is a Jewish War on Russia with homos as shock troops. There is no doubt about it. The so-called 'new cold war' is a Jewish War on Russia. I mean which ethnic group has been agitating against Russia? If US and EU had no Jews, there would be no Jewish War on Russia.

Jews love their total control in the US, and Jews hate China and Russia as 'great power' models that are defiant of the US, won't bend over to homo minority supremacism, and where the rulers and ruled are both of the same people.

Defense of Motherland from the GLOB will be the new great struggle of the 21st century. But for this to happen, we need to identify the enemy. It is the globalist Jews and their homo allies. Of course, not all Jews are like this nor endorse it, but the Jewish-powers-that-be in media, academia, and government overwhelmingly support it.

Putin is very close to Jewish oligarchs. Also, because Jew-worship is such a fixture of the West, he is loathe to spell out the Jewish power in all this.

But real change can only when the force that is creating the most problems around the world is identified. It's like Michael in GODFATHER II had to smoke out who the real enemy was. It was Hyman Roth.

Wow. That is an awesome essay. You ought to be writing for Unz Review.

On the subject of Stalin, he devoted a huge amount of USSR GDP towards military spending. Arguably it was this that enabled the USSR to survive Barbarossa. Historian David Stahel has shown Barbarossa had already failed by September 1941. German defeat was only a matter of time thereafter. Hitler admitted his amazement at the colossal level of USSR spending on armaments.

I think of Stalin as a mostly good leader as the alternative I see is China: an even higher-IQ country with a revolution against a monarchy in the 1910s with just as good a capacity for industrialization hampered by poor leadership, a near-absence of industrialization before the inevitable foreign invasion, and disunity.

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was far more advanced than contemporary China, and substantially more so even than China in 1949.

I had a longer post on this here: http://akarlin.com/2012/06/the-soviet-economy-charting-failure/

But suffice to say that by that period ~80% of Russian children were or had been in school, so mass literacy was imminent, and though it was beginning from a low base, industrial growth was the highest in Europe and there is good evidence that a rapid industrial takeoff was about to occur.

But I could easily see Russia losing the war without him, or becoming just as depression-wreaked as any southern European country with a much slower recovery.

Making the (implausible) assumption that the international situation would have panned out as it did without the Russian Revolution, Stalin's transfer of some heavy industries to the Urals and Siberia would have probably been more than entirely counteracted by an extra decades' worth of economic growth (the USSR only recovered the industrial production levels of the last years of Tsarist Russia in the late 1920s).

Colonel General Dimitri Volkogonov, the former Director of the Institute of Military History, argues that the father of Stalinism was Leninism, specifically, Lenin. He had unlimited accesss to hidden Politburo records. He also did a biography of Stalin which apparently caused him to lose his position as Director. Good reading, rigorously documented and referenced.

Wow. That is an awesome essay. You ought to be writing for Unz Review.

On the subject of Stalin, he devoted a huge amount of USSR GDP towards military spending. Arguably it was this that enabled the USSR to survive Barbarossa. Historian David Stahel has shown Barbarossa had already failed by September 1941. German defeat was only a matter of time thereafter. Hitler admitted his amazement at the colossal level of USSR spending on armaments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVqxoA52kjI

[Wow. That is an awesome essay. You ought to be writing for Unz Review]

Our Priss has definite potential. He does run on a bit, though, like Moldbug.

We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000But note that there is not a single verifiable excavated mass grave that can actually be SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka) even though Jews claim to know exactly where these allegedly enormous mass graves are.

The massive numbers of so called "eyewitne$$es" are living testimony to fraudulence of the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

CODOH has not debunked holocaust. I ahve already discussed with mutiples holocaust denialists on unz.com and they were not able to debunk anything.
Nazis did wage war of extermination against Poland and Russia, in which Poles, Belarussians, Ukrainians and Russians were murdered without pity in tens of thousands.

In the millions, not tens of thousands.In the war-crime Siege of Leningrad alone about ~1 million civilians were killed by Nazis: either directly due to bombardment or indirectly due to starvation and other siege related causes.

~3 million Poles were murdered.
~10+ million Russians and other Slav civilians were murdered by Nazis.

quotes from .pdf version, pagination may be slightly different:
p.173
"Those ultimately responsible for this hopeless situation have succeeded in their conspiracy: they have created, with the aid of “holocaust” professionals and propaganda, the necessary climate of guilt whereby never-ending legal as well as illegal immigration goes unchallenged, resulting in a fractured society, civil unrest and inadequate social funds. The desired massive debt is therefore programmed. Jewish influence has achieved the dissolution of a once cohesive community."

p.305
"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

p.458
"Jewish huckstering is most obviously apparent in its frenzied compulsion to uphold the “holocaust” myth, whose exposure would not only refute the Jews’ claim to Palestine and to endless financial reparations and atonement for harm not done to them, it would also deliver Jews and their minions to the fury of a world deceived and victimized for centuries by their lies and conspiracies."

p.303, paperback ed.
"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.

also see:
'quotes from Gerard Menuhin: Revisionist Jew, Son of Famous Violinist'
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10013

So many nations cheat with doping, so why has Russia been singled out? Globalist World Order is controlled by Jews and Homos, and Russia happens to be an independent nation that resists total takeover by Jews and Homos. So, Russia must be punished to set an example for the world. “If you don’t obey us, we will destroy you,” so say the Jews and Homos.

Israel oppresses and kills Palestinians but it can take part in the Olympics.
Saudis run a nasty operation, but it can join.
Even vile North Korea can play.
China uses doping more than any nation, but it is allowed in the Olympics because it too big a trading partner with the US. But US may move against China in the near future as well.
US invades and destroys entire countries and also has a long history of doping and cheating, but it can play in the Olympics.

But Russia must be banned because it is a symbol of a ‘great power that defies Jewish and Homo globo-imperialism’. Jews hate Russia especially because, unlike Iran or China, it is a nation that Jews can, if clever and lucky, can take over like the US and EU. Jews have deep roots and connections in Russia, after all.

This is how the Jew-and-Homo-controlled world works.

In the US, businesses that won’t make ‘gay wedding’ cakes or shower profuse praise on homos are destroyed to set an example for all the others.

Bend over to Jewish/Homo power or else be destroyed. And Jews and Homos use the same example with Russians and Palestinians.

Might as well be called Ziolympics.

Russia should consider it a blessing. Rio’s gonna be a mess. It’s crime capital of the world.

Interesting that the nations invaded or interfered with by Jew-Homo-controlled US are the most dangerous in the world. Jews and Homos sure know how to mess up the world. Since the end of the Cold War, Jews and Homos are the main imperialists and killers around the world. Jew-Homo-run US invaded Iraq, destroyed Libya, aided terrorists in Syria, pulled off a coup in Ukraine, and etc. The ideology of the US isn’t different from rapper thugs who only care about money, bling, and ho’s.

All vanity, all greed, all ruthlessness, all rottenness. Jews and Homos have become the new Hitlers.

I haven't read him, but from what I understand, Freud did not conduct experiments. I don't think he was even in the science business. He wrote about single cases he had dealt with. And everything he's famous for - the oedipal complex, penis envy, the oral/anal/etc. stuff - sounds like nonsense to me.

And psychology is certainly an area where experiments CAN be conducted and data can be gathered. And lots of people do that now. I've seen it claimed that for a long time Freud's nonsense took the oxygen (funding, interest) from the more scientific areas of psychology, retarding them by decades.

The most famous living linguist is Chomsky. Lots and lots of linguists think he's a fraud. Even though I'm a big glossophiliac, I've never read anything by Chomsky. How come? It's boring. I'm interested in two things: learning to read in foreign languages and reading about the history of languages, their genealogy and relationships with each other. He has nothing to say about that at all. In fact, he's a monoglot.

He claims to have discovered a universal grammar, a set of general rules that apply to all languages. Some people who've looked at it say that it bears an uncanny resemblance to the grammar of English, the only language Chomsky really speaks. They say that he deals with languages that differ from English greatly the way that medieval astronomers dealt with the challenges presented by the geocentric model. They drew epicycles and he made up complex exceptions to his "universal" grammar. The more different a language is from English, the more exceptions.

You WOULD expect a monoglot to underestimate the extent of differences between languages, to overestimate how normal and representative his own language is and to start making up complex excuses once contrary evidence is presented to him. This sounds comical, but so does race denialism, Marxism, libertarianism and lots of other things that have become popular over the years with very smart people.

Chomsky's kind of linguistics has taken a lot of funding away from real linguistics, the kind that gathers data, tries to establish connections between languages, tries to decipher undeciphered texts.

“And everything he’s famous for – the oedipal complex, penis envy, the oral/anal/etc. stuff – sounds like nonsense to me.” Freud was what Vladimir Nabokov called him, “the Viennese Fraud.” One example: his equating feces with money, which of course struck Keynes as brilliant.

CODOH has not debunked holocaust. I ahve already discussed with mutiples holocaust denialists on unz.com and they were not able to debunk anything.
Nazis did wage war of extermination against Poland and Russia, in which Poles, Belarussians, Ukrainians and Russians were murdered without pity in tens of thousands.

{were murdered without pity in tens of thousands.}

In the millions, not tens of thousands.
In the war-crime Siege of Leningrad alone about ~1 million civilians were killed by Nazis: either directly due to bombardment or indirectly due to starvation and other siege related causes.

~3 million Poles were murdered.
~10+ million Russians and other Slav civilians were murdered by Nazis.

Gotta say, this is consistently one of the smartest blogs and comment sections out there. I entirely agree with you on your key points, that 1) Stalin was a terrible leader, 2) the Stalinist death tolls, which were bad enough already, have been wildly exaggerated by anticommunist scholars and thereby caused Russians to doubt the veracity of anti-Stalinist claims in general, and 3) tribalism is at the root of a lot of this (and politics in general).

I would vaguely call myself something like “neoreactionary communist” and am more sympathetic to the ideals of communism and in particular central planning than you are (I think that someday, improved computing power and statistical methods, coupled with stagnation in late capitalist countries, might allow a sort of neo-socialist planning to outperform capitalism). But as it stands, central planning as implemented in the Soviet Union had a ton of problems, and I agree with you that Bukharin and his gradualist road would have been a better alternative.

The thing that counts for many Russians is that NO ONE brought Russia to greater power and glory than Stalin did, even though it owed to strange twists of fate.

Russia, due to its size and population and imperial possessions, always strove for greatness and great power status, but it always slipped away... until Stalin came along.

Russia was a serious underachiever. Its greatest triumph prior to Stalin was the defeat of Napoleon, but even that owed more to weather than Russian might. Napoleon defeated himself by overreach.

Russia failed to achieve true greatness because it was badly organized and backward. Also, paradoxically, its very advantage was its disadvantage. Having to rule over such vast territories, Russian power never consolidated into a iron fist like that of UK, Germany, or France. Russia was too busy overseeing its vast empire to ever develop a concentrated core power. This was also true of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe of China as well. Even though UK did became a great global power, it first consolidated power at home in its small island.

But Russia was a sprawling power from the beginning, a kind of blob. It failed to developed a proper spine. Its power spilled all over the place.

So, Russia got licked by Brits in Central Asia. Russia got beat by Japan, a non-white nation in 1905. And Russia lost badly in WWI.

Also, Russians have low national character. They lack discipline, order, focus, ethics, civic mindedness. They unruly and slovenly. They like to guzzle vodka, dance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks.

Prussia was small compared to Russia, but Prussians leaders were able to shape Prussians into a hardy, conscientious, orderly, and disciplined people.
Maybe Protestant ethos had something to do with it. Prussian elites and bureaucracy were quality, and they believed and trusted in the potential of their own people. So, they molded their Prussian folks into hardy fighting men, artisans, businessmen, scholars.

In contrast, maybe due to Byzantine and Oriental influences(of barbarian Mongols than civilized Chinese or Japanese), Russian elites became unfocused. If Protestantism emphasized direct link between human soul and God, Byzantinist Russian Orthodox created a vast labyrinth between God and man.
God could only be accessed through big bearded priests bellowing some tune like bears emerging from hibernation. Since individuals lacked direct access to God, ethics lagged in Russia. Ethics was just about listening to some bellowing priest who served the corrupt Czars.

But there were some visionary rulers in Russia like Peter.
But unlike Prussian rulers who ruled over quality people, Russian rulers looked at their own people and thought, "what a hopeless bunch." So, instead of trying to shape the populace into quality people, Russian rulers relied on foreign experts to rule stuff like government, institutions, and military. Consider how Russian business and government came to be filled with Germans. Russians figured, "We should get the Germans and French for brainy stuff, and we should just use the Russians as cattle." So, in a way, the Jewish contempt for the Russian masses wasn't all that different from that of Russian rulers.

Now, someone like Frederick the Great was a Francophile and preferred French language and culture to German, but he still respected fellow Prussians, high and low, for their conscientiousness and ability.

But Russian rulers saw their own people as dumb lowly cattle. Also, as Russian society became overly hierarchical, the Russian elites feared educating and raising the masses. So, serfdom continued in Russia for much longer. And even after serfdom, there was generally less faith in the people.

Russian elites didn't feel much kinship with their own people. Consider the scene in Dr. Zhivago where the rich man's daughter goes to France to study. She has nothing in common with the Russian folks. Also, many Russian rulers were not even Russian. Catherine the Great was some German ho who loved horses. She loved the power of being a Russian empress but she didn't give a crap about Russians. She made serfdom even tougher under her rule. So, even by blood, Russian monarchy were foreigners than Russians. They looked upon Russian masses as property than as fellow nationals. Of course, all kings felt that way back in the day, but there was more feeling of unity between British king and British folks than between Russian rulers and Russian masses, especially as the conduits between Russian rulers and Russian masses were the bellowing bearded priests whose singing could put you to sleep.

Given the attitude of Russian rulers toward Russian people, the theme of power in Russian history was rarely about justice or niceness. Consider Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein's film. He's sort of nutty, but he has the ruthlessness to rule with an iron fist and clobber the tarty Tartars and frighten the fruity Polacks.
He was Ivan the Terrifying, Ivan the Awesome, Ivan the World-Trembler. He wasn't a nice guy but he had the will to rule over a vast empire.

Ivan was Stalin's model. And it was under Stalin that, for the first and ONLY time, Russia fulfilled its ambition of becoming a truly great power.
Under Stalin in short time, Russian industrial output surpassed that of Germany, the great power of Europe. Even after the German mega-suckerpunch, reeling Russia gathered its senses and rolled back and smashed mighty Germany and, in the process, swallowed all of Eastern Europe. And Russia got total revenge against Japan by steamrolling into North China and whupping the Jappers in the finals days of WWII.
And soon, Russia had nukes too.
Under Stalin, Russia not only became a genuine great power but a superpower, one of the two greatest powers that ever existed, the other being USA.

This was truly an epic feat.

But there was a price to pay. There were millions of lives. There was the totalitarian system. The climate of fear and paranoia.
And even if Stalinism had been nicer, communism doesn't work in the long run. We saw how Russia, even under reforms under Khrushchev and then later Gorby, couldn't save communism.

Communism was too stifling of the individual soul and initiative.

But here's something ironic about Stalinism. Even though Stalin was one of the biggest killers if Russian history and a true modern tyrant, he did have a certain faith in the ability of the Russian masses. And this was different from the way of past rulers.
Past rulers figured that Russian masses were only good as cattle. Indeed, past Russian rulers tended to see Russians like Hitler did. Hitler dreamed of invading Russia and reducing Russian masses into illiterate slaves incapable of sophisticated human tasks. Of course, Russian rulers weren't as extreme as Hitler, but they still thought Russian masses would never amount to much.
Russian rulers thought the brainy stuff should be done by Germans and other foreigners, or even Jews.
And even Lenin and Trotsky felt this way. Lenin praised Jews and Germans but disdained dummy Russians. And one reason why Trotsky wanted to spread the revolution to Germany was because he respected German ability. He didn't think much could be done with Russian dummies.

In contrast, Stalin believed in the potential ability of the Russian masses. He expanded education and believed in the possibility of turning, almost overnight, sons of illiterate peasants into engineers, generals, doctors, scientists, teachers, and etc. And he half-succeeded in this. And there were real results and real transformation. So, even though Stalin was a mass killer and many innocents died, many young people of humble backgrounds really did their lives transformed.

The tragedy of all this is that even though Stalin educated and elevated many people from humble backgrounds, communism in the long run buries and stifles individual initiative. Ayn Rand might have been extreme and eccentric, but she was right that it takes individual freedom to make great breakthroughs. As Bill Buckley said of the Mona Lisa, "You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters."

If Stalin had been more of a nationalist-socialist who allowed some degree of individual freedom, USSR could have achieved much more. It may not have collapsed.

To this extent, the National Socialist model was better. And if Hitler had maintained an alliance with the USSR, and if USSR had taken cues from Germany, maybe the USSR could have developed a system that could have avoided collapse.

The Fascist model didn't collapse on its own. It was defeated cuz of reckless foreign policy and warmongering. In contrast, Soviet communism collapsed from its own weight, and Chinese communism changed into a national social-capitalist model that is close to fascism. Chinese, on their own, rejected Maoism.

Anyway, Russia needs to develop a model of having many strong men than being dependent on one strongman. This desire for a strongman betrays the Russian lack self-confidence, direction, focus, or discipline. They need someone to play master who will shape them, order them, and always tell them what to do.

A truly functional society has many little strong-men who, on their own, have a sense of direction and focus.

Look at Jews. Even a small Jewish minority community is filled with Jews with strong sense of identity, purpose, heritage, duty, obligation, and direction. So, even without leaders or strongman to guide them, Jews are doing stuff on their own. That's what makes them great.

Now, it's good for Russia to have good strong leaders, but in the end, Russians must find the strength in themselves so that, even without 'great leaders', they will do what's right.

America used to be like that before the egomaniacal Jews and homos took over.
Few US presidents qualify as great, and even the greatest never had the power of Stalin or even Putin. But America was always advancing and growing ceaselessly because so many American individuals were serious people about God, country, work, rule of law, business, culture, innovation, and etc. Sadly, that America seems to have passed. COMING APART is the new reality. The urban elites are getting richer and richer and cocooned in their decadent hipster privilege. White working class is turning into trash.
Recently, I went on a trip and saw so many 'white trash' types with tattoos and piercings. It was an ugly sight. It is becoming the new normal. And I also see more mudsharks and mulatto babies. Ewwwwww. That's the end of the white race right there.

Russia can become a truly good and great country, but it's going to take more than Putin or some strongman. Russians need a way to become many little strong-men than rely so heavily on the strongman as savior.

Chinese are harder-working than Russians. In this sense, Chinese are more like an army of little strong-men. Their achievements in the past 30 yrs have truly been amazing. But Chinese are not free men. Chinese individuals got work ethic, but they lack genuine values, conscience, and sense of individual free will.

Of course, Chinese have their own strongman mythology with Mao. Mao was far worse than Stalin who at least achieved certain things. Mao just destroyed everything he touched. Still, he was a genuinely powerful Chinese leader who was respected by the world community, and that counts for something to the Chinese after a century of humiliation when China was slapped around and seen as Sick Man of Asia.

I think the appeal of Stalin and Mao also has something to do with the soullessness of globalism. While Chinese today eat better and live better than in the past, there used to be big great themes that captured their imagination. During the imperialist era, Chinese dreamed of liberation and resistance. During WWII, they dreamed of beating back the Japanese dwarfs. And even though Mao was nuts, China under Mao had grand themes of revolution, redemption, purification, and etc. But since the economic rise of China, Chinese don't know what history is about anymore. The big themes are gone. End of History? Is it enough to just live for material goods?

So, harking back to Stalin and Mao is a harking back to a time when History was still alive as a battle of ideas and clash of civilizations.
But in the End of History era, things may be more peaceful but there seems to be no higher or bigger meaning to life but consumption.

But but but... things may be changing. Contrary to Francis Fukyomama, the End of History was not the triumph of Liberal Democracy. It was not the victory of abstract principles of free markets and democracy. Sure, those are still operative in politics and economics.
But the real driver of Power in the world is still ethnicity and identity. The West isn't so much about democracy, rule of law, and free markets as Jewish Ethnic Domination and Homo supremacist politics of identity.

The Wars in the Middle East were not about 'freedom' despite Bush-Cheney's bullshit. They were Wars for Israel. Jewish Tribalism and Homo neo-aristocratism are masked by call for 'democracy, human rights, and etc', but Jewish elites are really about Jewish power and homos are vain about being co-rulers of the world.

Democracy, free markets, and 'human rights' are all tools and instruments(and weapons) of those who control them. Every democracy serves the ethnic power that dominates it. After all, democracy can favor the 'far right' like Trump or 'far left' like Sanders. German democracy has been for open borders. Japanese democracy has been far less enthused about such. Israeli democracy is for Jewish nationalism. Turkish democracy is for Muslim power. In some nations, democracy pushed the nation to more 'left', and in others, democracy pushed it more 'right'.

Also, 'human rights' is not some abstract idea. It is a tool used by the powerful. So, US will invoke human rights against nations it sees as enemies but will overlook the same 'human rights' abuses in its allies. Look at Hillary calling Putin a 'new hitler' but going easy on Saudis. Also, this push for 'gay rights' is anything but. It goes way beyond asking the world to tolerate homos and let them do their homo stuff in their private lives. It is about making homomania as the new global faith for all nations. And it's about Jewish globalists ferreting out homos in every nation and using them as well-funded collaborators. It is no longer about 'gay rights' and all about Gay Might. Russia's NYET to the homo agenda has to do with the fact that the homo agenda is a proxy NGO tool of Globo-Jewdonia to subvert and control Russia.

Because of Jewish-and-Homo globalist ambitions, the End of History has come to an end. Tensions are mounting. US is moving against China and Russia.
And Jewish-and-Homo Wars in the Middle East have destroyed entire nations, and shitloads of Muslims are moving to EU and America, and there will be huge tensions.
Also, black African population is exploding and tons of blacks are moving to the West. Fukyomama's End of History idealism will NOT work with blacks. Blacks are too aggressive, too low IQ, too strong, too self-centered, and too sexually crazed to uphold Western values and ways. As EU fills up with Negroes and Muslims, things will fall apart. Now, white folks could rise up and push out Muslims and Negroes and save the West, but they won't. Why not? Because their minds and balls have been cucked and castrated by PC controlled by Jews and homos.

The endgame will be like the ending of ZARDOZ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YfozUcVRAk

I mean Merkel the louse is destroying Germany but Germans do nothing. Sweden has been ruined by Diversity, but PC is still the faith of that nation.
Hillary praises Merkel and calls for more illegals, but she has the advantage over Trump. So many whites still prefer her. (But then, part of her appeal is social status and prestige. Even though she poses as the candidate of 'social justice' and 'equality', many affluent and educated whites prefer her because the Democratic Party and 'progressivism' are associated with privilege, wealth, and prestige like Harvard, Yale, Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, art galleries, and etc. Of course, Hillaryism is really a hate crime against white middle class, working class, and poor class, but those people don't matter and are even dismissed by Cuckservatives.)

Anyway, history is heating up again because...

1. Jewish and Homo ambitions are global and insatiable. They are like a virus that must take over everything. And this means ramping up tensions against China and Russia. This may not lead to actual war, but Jews figure that without such fear-mongering against Russia and China, the globalist coalition might fall apart.
Jews have to scare all Europeans of Russian aggression to hold Nato and EU together.
US has to scare Asian nations about China to keep US military presence all over Asia and make Asian nations obey US policy. It is the GLUE.

2. Low white birthrates plus massive immigration will lead to rising tensions in the West. As many Muslim and esp African newcomers won't be able to contribute to much and will cause much trouble, there will be huge racial tensions down the line.

Fukyomama's dream of End of History might have materialized, at least for the West and East Asia, IF there had been closed borders and white majority rule in the West.
But as Jews and homos took elite power, they opened the borders wide. And as Jews and homos messed up the Middle East and broke the dam, tons of angry Muslims are pouring into the West. And all those blacks who got a taste of the West on the internet decided to go there as well by using guilt loopholes. Willfully strand themselves out in the sea, they have Europeans save them from their own faux-self-endangerment and then rampage around Europe. They are worse than Somali pirates. At least pirates are honest in their aggression. These 'refugees' are really pirates-in-refugee clothing who play helpless and cry for SOS in order jump onto the ship called Europe and pillage & rape it.

But they have their protectors in preening, vain, morally narcissistic Western elites who love to show how 'progressive' they are by expressing compassion. Of course, the likes of Merkel, Hillary, and George Clooney won't have to deal with the problems as they have it so good for themselves. They just live for approval from the Jews who, by the way, are for Israel remaining a Jewish state.

Anyway, big things are underfoot, and suddenly Russians and Chinese may have Big Themes to struggle for once again. What we have now is a Jewish War on Russia with homos as shock troops. There is no doubt about it. The so-called 'new cold war' is a Jewish War on Russia. I mean which ethnic group has been agitating against Russia? If US and EU had no Jews, there would be no Jewish War on Russia.

Jews love their total control in the US, and Jews hate China and Russia as 'great power' models that are defiant of the US, won't bend over to homo minority supremacism, and where the rulers and ruled are both of the same people.

Defense of Motherland from the GLOB will be the new great struggle of the 21st century. But for this to happen, we need to identify the enemy. It is the globalist Jews and their homo allies. Of course, not all Jews are like this nor endorse it, but the Jewish-powers-that-be in media, academia, and government overwhelmingly support it.

Putin is very close to Jewish oligarchs. Also, because Jew-worship is such a fixture of the West, he is loathe to spell out the Jewish power in all this.

But real change can only when the force that is creating the most problems around the world is identified. It's like Michael in GODFATHER II had to smoke out who the real enemy was. It was Hyman Roth.

Now I made myself to read the essay by “Anonymy” in full. It is rather empty; instead, it is full of clichés.
Example:

Also, Russians have low national character. They lack discipline, order, focus, ethics, civic mindedness. They unruly and slovenly. They like to guzzle vodka, dance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks.

Can you trust anybody who wrotedance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks?
Apparently the knowledge of “Anonymy” about Russians is based on movies. Example:

Russian elites didn’t feel much kinship with their own people. Consider the scene in Dr. Zhivago where the rich man’s daughter goes to France to study. She has nothing in common with the Russian folks.

To the best of my recollections, there is no such “scene” in the novel “Doctor Zhivago” by B. L. Pasternak. I did not watch Western-made movie “Doctor Zivago” (apparently pretty good movie, judging from numerous reviews.) But to make a conclusion about Russians from a scene of Western-made movie is laughable.

“Anonymy” wrote:

Consider Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein’s film. []

Ok, this film, made by world-famous Soviet director S. Eisenstein, reflects well the attitude of Stalin towards Ivan the Terrible and his deeds. How well it reflects the history is quite different question, which I am not ready to describe in written form. But the appeal by “Anonymy” to a movie in an essay supposedly of serious historical judgement, such appeal looks quite bleak.

Forget the question about IQ, which I tried to pose. I meant “Understanding Human History” by Michael Hart,

Nonsense. Joseph Stalin embodied the Jewish-controlled Bolshevik Russia. He was a mass-killer. He murdered over 7 million Christians and Muslims in Ukraine and Crimean Muslim Tatars. Under Stalin Jews were prominent in the mass murder and imprisonment of Christians and Muslims - in fact, Slezkine himself even uses the phrase that the Jews were “Stalin’s willing executioners.”

Stalin destroyed hundreds of churches and mosques but never touched a single synagogue.

Stalin even established the very first autonomous Jewish state in Russia in 1934.

https://rehmat1.com/2010/06/13/birobidjan-the-first-jewish-state/

It’s true that Lenin made anti-semitism a crime in the Soviet Union. Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents to succeed Lenin, and these included Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. As Slezkine says, in his excellent book, Jews occupied the top positions in the NKVD before World War II. Many of the Politburo members, outside Kaganovich, were also married to Jews or had Jewish relatives.

However, after World War II, Stalin purged most NKVD/KGB members who had Jewish connections. This was particularly true after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948. In addition, Stalin limited upper level Jewish positions in the Communist Party. He forced Kalinin, and Molatov to inform on their Jewish wives and Kaganovich to agree to his brother’s execution. Stalin was getting ready for a purge of Jews, who were implicated by him in the “Doctors’ Plot” It was only his death in 1953 that prevented a pogrom of massive proportions.

Stalin really trusted no one, particularly the Jews, of whom he once said “we need their brains”
He was a paranoid psychopath, but a genius politician and world class tactician. He was one of the ablest mass murderers in human history.

I do not know how many times I am going to encounter these myths. It never ends.

"It’s true that Lenin made anti-semitism a crime in the Soviet Union. Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents to succeed Lenin, and these included Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. As Slezkine says, in his excellent book, Jews occupied the top positions in the NKVD before World War II. Many of the Politburo members, outside Kaganovich, were also married to Jews or had Jewish relatives."

This is false, and if you believe a man that uses the terms 'Mercurian' and other ridiculous terms, well then I guess it's akin to believing the sky is red because we're all red inside. Second, Jews did not occupy the 'top positions' in the NKVD. Even Wikipedia says as much, and official lists of the NKVD and the ethnicities of all of its members are listed. You never bothered to look and neither did Slezkine.

"However, after World War II, Stalin purged most NKVD/KGB members who had Jewish connections. This was particularly true after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948." - Most sources say the purges occurred in the 1930's, during the peak years of Repression, and besides, Stalin died in 1953. The country had to be rebuilt, and there'd be no time for said repressions.

"In addition, Stalin limited upper level Jewish positions in the Communist Party. He forced Kalinin, and Molatov to inform on their Jewish wives and Kaganovich to agree to his brother’s execution. Stalin was getting ready for a purge of Jews, who were implicated by him in the “Doctors’ Plot” It was only his death in 1953 that prevented a pogrom of massive proportions." - The Doctor's Plot is a myth, and many of them weren't even Jewish to begin with.

http://www.apn.ru/publications/article19258.htm

"Stalin really trusted no one, particularly the Jews, of whom he once said “we need their brains”
He was a paranoid psychopath, but a genius politician and world class tactician. He was one of the ablest mass murderers in human history." - He's a psychopath yet a world class tactician? OK. Plenty of myths of Stalin abound, and it is amusing to see how many people believe them.

In the millions, not tens of thousands.In the war-crime Siege of Leningrad alone about ~1 million civilians were killed by Nazis: either directly due to bombardment or indirectly due to starvation and other siege related causes.

~3 million Poles were murdered.
~10+ million Russians and other Slav civilians were murdered by Nazis.

The thing that counts for many Russians is that NO ONE brought Russia to greater power and glory than Stalin did, even though it owed to strange twists of fate.

Russia, due to its size and population and imperial possessions, always strove for greatness and great power status, but it always slipped away... until Stalin came along.

Russia was a serious underachiever. Its greatest triumph prior to Stalin was the defeat of Napoleon, but even that owed more to weather than Russian might. Napoleon defeated himself by overreach.

Russia failed to achieve true greatness because it was badly organized and backward. Also, paradoxically, its very advantage was its disadvantage. Having to rule over such vast territories, Russian power never consolidated into a iron fist like that of UK, Germany, or France. Russia was too busy overseeing its vast empire to ever develop a concentrated core power. This was also true of the Ottoman Empire. Maybe of China as well. Even though UK did became a great global power, it first consolidated power at home in its small island.

But Russia was a sprawling power from the beginning, a kind of blob. It failed to developed a proper spine. Its power spilled all over the place.

So, Russia got licked by Brits in Central Asia. Russia got beat by Japan, a non-white nation in 1905. And Russia lost badly in WWI.

Also, Russians have low national character. They lack discipline, order, focus, ethics, civic mindedness. They unruly and slovenly. They like to guzzle vodka, dance on tables, wrestle bears, and catch fish with dicks.

Prussia was small compared to Russia, but Prussians leaders were able to shape Prussians into a hardy, conscientious, orderly, and disciplined people.
Maybe Protestant ethos had something to do with it. Prussian elites and bureaucracy were quality, and they believed and trusted in the potential of their own people. So, they molded their Prussian folks into hardy fighting men, artisans, businessmen, scholars.

In contrast, maybe due to Byzantine and Oriental influences(of barbarian Mongols than civilized Chinese or Japanese), Russian elites became unfocused. If Protestantism emphasized direct link between human soul and God, Byzantinist Russian Orthodox created a vast labyrinth between God and man.
God could only be accessed through big bearded priests bellowing some tune like bears emerging from hibernation. Since individuals lacked direct access to God, ethics lagged in Russia. Ethics was just about listening to some bellowing priest who served the corrupt Czars.

But there were some visionary rulers in Russia like Peter.
But unlike Prussian rulers who ruled over quality people, Russian rulers looked at their own people and thought, "what a hopeless bunch." So, instead of trying to shape the populace into quality people, Russian rulers relied on foreign experts to rule stuff like government, institutions, and military. Consider how Russian business and government came to be filled with Germans. Russians figured, "We should get the Germans and French for brainy stuff, and we should just use the Russians as cattle." So, in a way, the Jewish contempt for the Russian masses wasn't all that different from that of Russian rulers.

Now, someone like Frederick the Great was a Francophile and preferred French language and culture to German, but he still respected fellow Prussians, high and low, for their conscientiousness and ability.

But Russian rulers saw their own people as dumb lowly cattle. Also, as Russian society became overly hierarchical, the Russian elites feared educating and raising the masses. So, serfdom continued in Russia for much longer. And even after serfdom, there was generally less faith in the people.

Russian elites didn't feel much kinship with their own people. Consider the scene in Dr. Zhivago where the rich man's daughter goes to France to study. She has nothing in common with the Russian folks. Also, many Russian rulers were not even Russian. Catherine the Great was some German ho who loved horses. She loved the power of being a Russian empress but she didn't give a crap about Russians. She made serfdom even tougher under her rule. So, even by blood, Russian monarchy were foreigners than Russians. They looked upon Russian masses as property than as fellow nationals. Of course, all kings felt that way back in the day, but there was more feeling of unity between British king and British folks than between Russian rulers and Russian masses, especially as the conduits between Russian rulers and Russian masses were the bellowing bearded priests whose singing could put you to sleep.

Given the attitude of Russian rulers toward Russian people, the theme of power in Russian history was rarely about justice or niceness. Consider Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein's film. He's sort of nutty, but he has the ruthlessness to rule with an iron fist and clobber the tarty Tartars and frighten the fruity Polacks.
He was Ivan the Terrifying, Ivan the Awesome, Ivan the World-Trembler. He wasn't a nice guy but he had the will to rule over a vast empire.

Ivan was Stalin's model. And it was under Stalin that, for the first and ONLY time, Russia fulfilled its ambition of becoming a truly great power.
Under Stalin in short time, Russian industrial output surpassed that of Germany, the great power of Europe. Even after the German mega-suckerpunch, reeling Russia gathered its senses and rolled back and smashed mighty Germany and, in the process, swallowed all of Eastern Europe. And Russia got total revenge against Japan by steamrolling into North China and whupping the Jappers in the finals days of WWII.
And soon, Russia had nukes too.
Under Stalin, Russia not only became a genuine great power but a superpower, one of the two greatest powers that ever existed, the other being USA.

This was truly an epic feat.

But there was a price to pay. There were millions of lives. There was the totalitarian system. The climate of fear and paranoia.
And even if Stalinism had been nicer, communism doesn't work in the long run. We saw how Russia, even under reforms under Khrushchev and then later Gorby, couldn't save communism.

Communism was too stifling of the individual soul and initiative.

But here's something ironic about Stalinism. Even though Stalin was one of the biggest killers if Russian history and a true modern tyrant, he did have a certain faith in the ability of the Russian masses. And this was different from the way of past rulers.
Past rulers figured that Russian masses were only good as cattle. Indeed, past Russian rulers tended to see Russians like Hitler did. Hitler dreamed of invading Russia and reducing Russian masses into illiterate slaves incapable of sophisticated human tasks. Of course, Russian rulers weren't as extreme as Hitler, but they still thought Russian masses would never amount to much.
Russian rulers thought the brainy stuff should be done by Germans and other foreigners, or even Jews.
And even Lenin and Trotsky felt this way. Lenin praised Jews and Germans but disdained dummy Russians. And one reason why Trotsky wanted to spread the revolution to Germany was because he respected German ability. He didn't think much could be done with Russian dummies.

In contrast, Stalin believed in the potential ability of the Russian masses. He expanded education and believed in the possibility of turning, almost overnight, sons of illiterate peasants into engineers, generals, doctors, scientists, teachers, and etc. And he half-succeeded in this. And there were real results and real transformation. So, even though Stalin was a mass killer and many innocents died, many young people of humble backgrounds really did their lives transformed.

The tragedy of all this is that even though Stalin educated and elevated many people from humble backgrounds, communism in the long run buries and stifles individual initiative. Ayn Rand might have been extreme and eccentric, but she was right that it takes individual freedom to make great breakthroughs. As Bill Buckley said of the Mona Lisa, "You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters."

If Stalin had been more of a nationalist-socialist who allowed some degree of individual freedom, USSR could have achieved much more. It may not have collapsed.

To this extent, the National Socialist model was better. And if Hitler had maintained an alliance with the USSR, and if USSR had taken cues from Germany, maybe the USSR could have developed a system that could have avoided collapse.

The Fascist model didn't collapse on its own. It was defeated cuz of reckless foreign policy and warmongering. In contrast, Soviet communism collapsed from its own weight, and Chinese communism changed into a national social-capitalist model that is close to fascism. Chinese, on their own, rejected Maoism.

Anyway, Russia needs to develop a model of having many strong men than being dependent on one strongman. This desire for a strongman betrays the Russian lack self-confidence, direction, focus, or discipline. They need someone to play master who will shape them, order them, and always tell them what to do.

A truly functional society has many little strong-men who, on their own, have a sense of direction and focus.

Look at Jews. Even a small Jewish minority community is filled with Jews with strong sense of identity, purpose, heritage, duty, obligation, and direction. So, even without leaders or strongman to guide them, Jews are doing stuff on their own. That's what makes them great.

Now, it's good for Russia to have good strong leaders, but in the end, Russians must find the strength in themselves so that, even without 'great leaders', they will do what's right.

America used to be like that before the egomaniacal Jews and homos took over.
Few US presidents qualify as great, and even the greatest never had the power of Stalin or even Putin. But America was always advancing and growing ceaselessly because so many American individuals were serious people about God, country, work, rule of law, business, culture, innovation, and etc. Sadly, that America seems to have passed. COMING APART is the new reality. The urban elites are getting richer and richer and cocooned in their decadent hipster privilege. White working class is turning into trash.
Recently, I went on a trip and saw so many 'white trash' types with tattoos and piercings. It was an ugly sight. It is becoming the new normal. And I also see more mudsharks and mulatto babies. Ewwwwww. That's the end of the white race right there.

Russia can become a truly good and great country, but it's going to take more than Putin or some strongman. Russians need a way to become many little strong-men than rely so heavily on the strongman as savior.

Chinese are harder-working than Russians. In this sense, Chinese are more like an army of little strong-men. Their achievements in the past 30 yrs have truly been amazing. But Chinese are not free men. Chinese individuals got work ethic, but they lack genuine values, conscience, and sense of individual free will.

Of course, Chinese have their own strongman mythology with Mao. Mao was far worse than Stalin who at least achieved certain things. Mao just destroyed everything he touched. Still, he was a genuinely powerful Chinese leader who was respected by the world community, and that counts for something to the Chinese after a century of humiliation when China was slapped around and seen as Sick Man of Asia.

I think the appeal of Stalin and Mao also has something to do with the soullessness of globalism. While Chinese today eat better and live better than in the past, there used to be big great themes that captured their imagination. During the imperialist era, Chinese dreamed of liberation and resistance. During WWII, they dreamed of beating back the Japanese dwarfs. And even though Mao was nuts, China under Mao had grand themes of revolution, redemption, purification, and etc. But since the economic rise of China, Chinese don't know what history is about anymore. The big themes are gone. End of History? Is it enough to just live for material goods?

So, harking back to Stalin and Mao is a harking back to a time when History was still alive as a battle of ideas and clash of civilizations.
But in the End of History era, things may be more peaceful but there seems to be no higher or bigger meaning to life but consumption.

But but but... things may be changing. Contrary to Francis Fukyomama, the End of History was not the triumph of Liberal Democracy. It was not the victory of abstract principles of free markets and democracy. Sure, those are still operative in politics and economics.
But the real driver of Power in the world is still ethnicity and identity. The West isn't so much about democracy, rule of law, and free markets as Jewish Ethnic Domination and Homo supremacist politics of identity.

The Wars in the Middle East were not about 'freedom' despite Bush-Cheney's bullshit. They were Wars for Israel. Jewish Tribalism and Homo neo-aristocratism are masked by call for 'democracy, human rights, and etc', but Jewish elites are really about Jewish power and homos are vain about being co-rulers of the world.

Democracy, free markets, and 'human rights' are all tools and instruments(and weapons) of those who control them. Every democracy serves the ethnic power that dominates it. After all, democracy can favor the 'far right' like Trump or 'far left' like Sanders. German democracy has been for open borders. Japanese democracy has been far less enthused about such. Israeli democracy is for Jewish nationalism. Turkish democracy is for Muslim power. In some nations, democracy pushed the nation to more 'left', and in others, democracy pushed it more 'right'.

Also, 'human rights' is not some abstract idea. It is a tool used by the powerful. So, US will invoke human rights against nations it sees as enemies but will overlook the same 'human rights' abuses in its allies. Look at Hillary calling Putin a 'new hitler' but going easy on Saudis. Also, this push for 'gay rights' is anything but. It goes way beyond asking the world to tolerate homos and let them do their homo stuff in their private lives. It is about making homomania as the new global faith for all nations. And it's about Jewish globalists ferreting out homos in every nation and using them as well-funded collaborators. It is no longer about 'gay rights' and all about Gay Might. Russia's NYET to the homo agenda has to do with the fact that the homo agenda is a proxy NGO tool of Globo-Jewdonia to subvert and control Russia.

Because of Jewish-and-Homo globalist ambitions, the End of History has come to an end. Tensions are mounting. US is moving against China and Russia.
And Jewish-and-Homo Wars in the Middle East have destroyed entire nations, and shitloads of Muslims are moving to EU and America, and there will be huge tensions.
Also, black African population is exploding and tons of blacks are moving to the West. Fukyomama's End of History idealism will NOT work with blacks. Blacks are too aggressive, too low IQ, too strong, too self-centered, and too sexually crazed to uphold Western values and ways. As EU fills up with Negroes and Muslims, things will fall apart. Now, white folks could rise up and push out Muslims and Negroes and save the West, but they won't. Why not? Because their minds and balls have been cucked and castrated by PC controlled by Jews and homos.

The endgame will be like the ending of ZARDOZ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YfozUcVRAk

I mean Merkel the louse is destroying Germany but Germans do nothing. Sweden has been ruined by Diversity, but PC is still the faith of that nation.
Hillary praises Merkel and calls for more illegals, but she has the advantage over Trump. So many whites still prefer her. (But then, part of her appeal is social status and prestige. Even though she poses as the candidate of 'social justice' and 'equality', many affluent and educated whites prefer her because the Democratic Party and 'progressivism' are associated with privilege, wealth, and prestige like Harvard, Yale, Hollywood, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, art galleries, and etc. Of course, Hillaryism is really a hate crime against white middle class, working class, and poor class, but those people don't matter and are even dismissed by Cuckservatives.)

Anyway, history is heating up again because...

1. Jewish and Homo ambitions are global and insatiable. They are like a virus that must take over everything. And this means ramping up tensions against China and Russia. This may not lead to actual war, but Jews figure that without such fear-mongering against Russia and China, the globalist coalition might fall apart.
Jews have to scare all Europeans of Russian aggression to hold Nato and EU together.
US has to scare Asian nations about China to keep US military presence all over Asia and make Asian nations obey US policy. It is the GLUE.

2. Low white birthrates plus massive immigration will lead to rising tensions in the West. As many Muslim and esp African newcomers won't be able to contribute to much and will cause much trouble, there will be huge racial tensions down the line.

Fukyomama's dream of End of History might have materialized, at least for the West and East Asia, IF there had been closed borders and white majority rule in the West.
But as Jews and homos took elite power, they opened the borders wide. And as Jews and homos messed up the Middle East and broke the dam, tons of angry Muslims are pouring into the West. And all those blacks who got a taste of the West on the internet decided to go there as well by using guilt loopholes. Willfully strand themselves out in the sea, they have Europeans save them from their own faux-self-endangerment and then rampage around Europe. They are worse than Somali pirates. At least pirates are honest in their aggression. These 'refugees' are really pirates-in-refugee clothing who play helpless and cry for SOS in order jump onto the ship called Europe and pillage & rape it.

But they have their protectors in preening, vain, morally narcissistic Western elites who love to show how 'progressive' they are by expressing compassion. Of course, the likes of Merkel, Hillary, and George Clooney won't have to deal with the problems as they have it so good for themselves. They just live for approval from the Jews who, by the way, are for Israel remaining a Jewish state.

Anyway, big things are underfoot, and suddenly Russians and Chinese may have Big Themes to struggle for once again. What we have now is a Jewish War on Russia with homos as shock troops. There is no doubt about it. The so-called 'new cold war' is a Jewish War on Russia. I mean which ethnic group has been agitating against Russia? If US and EU had no Jews, there would be no Jewish War on Russia.

Jews love their total control in the US, and Jews hate China and Russia as 'great power' models that are defiant of the US, won't bend over to homo minority supremacism, and where the rulers and ruled are both of the same people.

Defense of Motherland from the GLOB will be the new great struggle of the 21st century. But for this to happen, we need to identify the enemy. It is the globalist Jews and their homo allies. Of course, not all Jews are like this nor endorse it, but the Jewish-powers-that-be in media, academia, and government overwhelmingly support it.

Putin is very close to Jewish oligarchs. Also, because Jew-worship is such a fixture of the West, he is loathe to spell out the Jewish power in all this.

But real change can only when the force that is creating the most problems around the world is identified. It's like Michael in GODFATHER II had to smoke out who the real enemy was. It was Hyman Roth.

Constantly changing your handle to avoid being filtered by users’ Ignore function should be prohibited.

Didn’t Prussia swallow most of the rest of Germany between those two dates? Are you comparing apples to apples or apples to coconuts here?

And Russian Empire conquered Central Asia. So what?

This may be a somewhat wacky and far-out notion, but perhaps Bavaria is a somewhat nicer stretch of real estate than Bukhara.

Granted, the real estate is one thing but the people are another; the spiky-helmet dudes finding themselves saddled with the ol’ beer-drinkers, whose fictional claims of “industriousness” and “self-discipline” merely masked the organized theft of their BMWs and bucolic, cobblestoned villages from the local elves and tree spirits.

For such vicious and evil crimes the Bavarians were both totally not mass-murdered and totally deserved to be mass-murdered. The more Bavarians you kill, the more Pro-Bavarian you are. Also, the Weimar Republic was worse than Hitler.

CODOH has not debunked holocaust. I ahve already discussed with mutiples holocaust denialists on unz.com and they were not able to debunk anything.
Nazis did wage war of extermination against Poland and Russia, in which Poles, Belarussians, Ukrainians and Russians were murdered without pity in tens of thousands.

Yeah right, you don’t have the nerve to debate at CODOH where there’s no name calling or dodging, you know you would be made a fool of.

But hey, here’s righteous Jew Gerard Menuhin on the matter:

From the book by Revisionist Jew, Gerard Menuhin, the son of the famed Jewish violinist Yehuda Menuhin:

quotes from .pdf version, pagination may be slightly different:
p.173
“Those ultimately responsible for this hopeless situation have succeeded in their conspiracy: they have created, with the aid of “holocaust” professionals and propaganda, the necessary climate of guilt whereby never-ending legal as well as illegal immigration goes unchallenged, resulting in a fractured society, civil unrest and inadequate social funds. The desired massive debt is therefore programmed. Jewish influence has achieved the dissolution of a once cohesive community.”

p.305
“Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

p.458
“Jewish huckstering is most obviously apparent in its frenzied compulsion to uphold the “holocaust” myth, whose exposure would not only refute the Jews’ claim to Palestine and to endless financial reparations and atonement for harm not done to them, it would also deliver Jews and their minions to the fury of a world deceived and victimized for centuries by their lies and conspiracies.”

p.303, paperback ed.
“Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.

also see:
‘quotes from Gerard Menuhin: Revisionist Jew, Son of Famous Violinist’

In the millions, not tens of thousands.In the war-crime Siege of Leningrad alone about ~1 million civilians were killed by Nazis: either directly due to bombardment or indirectly due to starvation and other siege related causes.

~3 million Poles were murdered.
~10+ million Russians and other Slav civilians were murdered by Nazis.

Oh how racist supremacist Jews hate the truth.

“Truth is hate for those who hate the truth”.

A must see here:

and:
The embarrassing high school-like drama of Nazi human skin lampshades & shrunken heads stagecraft is absolutely exposed here for the fraud that it is.
Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil
By DenierBud

Given that the holocau$t is brought up, time & again, in various threads here, by brainwashed fools & propagandists, I see nothing wrong with BobbyBeGood trying to get people to wake up.

Stupid holocau$t denial?? Have you ever read even one good book from the other side of the debate?
Why, if the holohoax is so well documented- it is NOT - does Germany and so many other countries need the police and the 'justice' system to shut down debate?

The reason is bc the official story does not have a leg to stand on, thats is why.

I assume that you r either a German or of German origin... you represent all that is wrong with Germany and German people these days.
Grow a pair and study what the other side, a heavily persecuted one, which has to operate underground, has to say on the matter. Do so with an open mind and you will be in for quite a surprise... as I was.

Start with 'The Rudolf Report—Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the “Gas Chambers” of Auschwitz', a detailed study by a modern day German hero, put in prison for 'thought crimes'. That is truly disgusting.
" Appendix describes Rudolf’s unique persecution—this brilliant scientist was so feared by the mainstream holocaust establishment that they banned him from writing about or researching the subject as terms of his release from prison!

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=2

"For me, the significance of receiving your report rests on the fact that it substantially contributes to our stock of knowledge. With many of my collegues active in the field of contemporary history, I am overjoyed and thankful for you having initiated this research activity. Of course, I am even more delighted regarding the results of your accurate scientific investigation." —Prof. Dr. Werner Georg Haverbeck, Historian, January 31, 1992

"I calmly read your report! It gives me hope to realize that a representative of the younger generation courageously sets out, with scientific thoroughness, noticeable great expertise, and corresponding investigative curiosity, to get to the bottom of a controversial question that is of worldwide significance! The result is clear and unequivocal! True facts cannot be suppressed forever! I wish that your work will make the breakthrough!" —Prof. Emil Schlee, Historian, April 1, 1992

ps: notice that there is no problem, as evidenced by the so many of the comments, to try to exonerate Stalin and his regime whose crimes are, in fact, much better documented than a lot of the nonsense atributted to Hitler and his regime.

Stalin always had people to defend him, in Russia as well as in the West( generally leftist/lib circles), including in Academia.

Stalin was a Georgian, not a Russian. He always spoke Russian with a very harsh accent. Millions of Russians who heard his actual voice for the first time in July 1941 were shocked at how terrible his Russian was. He also killed millions of Russians (among other peoples) over the course of his rule.

Shows how dismal Russian history really is that so many Russians today consider him somebody to admire.

Now: what is your ethnicity? I am of Armenian descent.What is your nationality? I am American. And what's your beef with the Polish people that you are happy 3 million Poles were murdered, including children.

Now: what is your ethnicity? I am of Armenian descent.
What is your nationality? I am American.
And what’s your beef with the Polish people that you are happy 3 million Poles were murdered, including children.

My granddaughter and I were playing an old game I used to play with when I was her age -- it involves a metal globe and magnetic airplanes.

Grandaughter looked up at me with her adorable blue -- or maybe brown, or grey eyes, like a proper Brit -- and said in sweet little voice with the slight Russo-French, or maybe Texas accent, Grandma Nan -- or is it Grampa Don -- who drew all the lines around those places? Did god do that?

As we say in the Land down under -- or is it in Quebec, or the Seychelles -- "Cute, eh mate?"

PS I told her it all depends on who the god is. Who's your god, Avery the Armenian-American? Do you worship the same god who sanctions the killing of Palestinian children with your American tax dollars?

Mr. Karlin,
m
I read your posts and the thoughtful commenters on your thread with interest and respect.

You wrote:

” ….. It’s hard to view Stalin as any sort of Russian national hero considering the demonstrable idiocy of his apologists’ arguments.

Trying to portray him as such involves descending into a fantasy world in which no country had ever managed to industrialize itself without killing off millions of its most intelligent and productive people or have won a war against a European Great Power without the indispensable strategic wisdom that you could only get from a Georgian dropout who spent his youth robbing banks and sitting in jail with his fellow Bolshevik comrades and sundry ethnic minority activists. A more rabidly Russophobic outlook could scarcely be imagined….”

Later at posting #40 commenter Parsifal wrote: “…..5) You can tell a lot by the country’s national anthem. The Internationale was replaced in 1944 with an anthem that in it’s first two verses sang about the unbreakable union forged by “velikaya Rus”.”Rus” is a far greater concept then “Russia”, it denotes a cultural and a spritual realm not just a geopolitical one. ”

For me an Aha moment:

I posted on another thread about the fiction novels series “Nochnyi Dozor” by Sergey Lukianenko . The action takes place in post-Soviet Russia. The concept of Rossia that emanates from his writing is very much that mentioned by Parsifal: ”Rus” as a far greater concept then “Russia”, denoting a cultural and a spiritual realm”.
The novel’s Kazah, Ucrainian or Estonian characters (even the Jews) are just another flavor of Russia’s cultural and spiritual realm. Russiannes is all-encompassing, never-mind those fresh borders. Moscow is still the center of their Universe.

Perhaps Stalin’s admirers share in their “subconscious” this more generous conception of Russiann-ess. Stalin not off a hostile ethnicity. Just another flavor of “nashyi” (ours).

A 94-year-old former SS guard at Auschwitz was convicted Friday in a German court of complicity in the murder of 170,000 people at the Nazi death camp and sentenced to five years in jail, according to media reports.
"You were at Auschwitz for nearly two-and-a half years, and you thus abetted mass murder," Judge Anke Grudda told Hanning in pronouncing the verdict in what is likely Germany's last Holocaust trial, the German news agency DPA reported.

A 94-year-old former SS guard at Auschwitz was convicted Friday in a German court of complicity in the murder of 170,000 people at the Nazi death camp and sentenced to five years in jail, according to media reports."You were at Auschwitz for nearly two-and-a half years, and you thus abetted mass murder," Judge Anke Grudda told Hanning in pronouncing the verdict in what is likely Germany's last Holocaust trial, the German news agency DPA reported.

Now: what is your ethnicity? I am of Armenian descent.What is your nationality? I am American. And what's your beef with the Polish people that you are happy 3 million Poles were murdered, including children.

Over to you.

my real first name is Nan.

or maybe Don.

I am a citizen of the world.

My granddaughter and I were playing an old game I used to play with when I was her age — it involves a metal globe and magnetic airplanes.

Grandaughter looked up at me with her adorable blue — or maybe brown, or grey eyes, like a proper Brit — and said in sweet little voice with the slight Russo-French, or maybe Texas accent, Grandma Nan — or is it Grampa Don — who drew all the lines around those places? Did god do that?

As we say in the Land down under — or is it in Quebec, or the Seychelles — “Cute, eh mate?”

PS I told her it all depends on who the god is. Who’s your god, Avery the Armenian-American? Do you worship the same god who sanctions the killing of Palestinian children with your American tax dollars?

This may be a somewhat wacky and far-out notion, but perhaps Bavaria is a somewhat nicer stretch of real estate than Bukhara.

Granted, the real estate is one thing but the people are another; the spiky-helmet dudes finding themselves saddled with the ol' beer-drinkers, whose fictional claims of "industriousness" and "self-discipline" merely masked the organized theft of their BMWs and bucolic, cobblestoned villages from the local elves and tree spirits.

For such vicious and evil crimes the Bavarians were both totally not mass-murdered and totally deserved to be mass-murdered. The more Bavarians you kill, the more Pro-Bavarian you are. Also, the Weimar Republic was worse than Hitler.

“…the spiky-helmet dudes…”

You mean the ones US officers wore? Or wuz it OK for them for some reason?

You can still get one of your very own. Even the US Medical officers had’em.

A 94-year-old former SS guard at Auschwitz was convicted Friday in a German court of complicity in the murder of 170,000 people at the Nazi death camp and sentenced to five years in jail, according to media reports.
“You were at Auschwitz for nearly two-and-a half years, and you thus abetted mass murder,” Judge Anke Grudda told Hanning in pronouncing the verdict in what is likely Germany’s last Holocaust trial, the German news agency DPA reported.

A 94-year-old former SS guard at Auschwitz was convicted Friday in a German court of complicity in the murder of 170,000 people at the Nazi death camp and sentenced to five years in jail, according to media reports.
“You were at Auschwitz for nearly two-and-a half years, and you thus abetted mass murder,” Judge Anke Grudda told Hanning in pronouncing the verdict in what is likely Germany’s last Holocaust trial, the German news agency DPA reported.

My granddaughter and I were playing an old game I used to play with when I was her age -- it involves a metal globe and magnetic airplanes.

Grandaughter looked up at me with her adorable blue -- or maybe brown, or grey eyes, like a proper Brit -- and said in sweet little voice with the slight Russo-French, or maybe Texas accent, Grandma Nan -- or is it Grampa Don -- who drew all the lines around those places? Did god do that?

As we say in the Land down under -- or is it in Quebec, or the Seychelles -- "Cute, eh mate?"

PS I told her it all depends on who the god is. Who's your god, Avery the Armenian-American? Do you worship the same god who sanctions the killing of Palestinian children with your American tax dollars?

So, you are admitting you are a coward, a slimeball, a scumbag, a loser, and an idiot. Thanks for proving me right.

{ Who’s your god, Avery the Armenian-American? Do you worship the same god who sanctions the killing of Palestinian children with your American tax dollars?}

Who is _your_ God, you neo-Nazi scum.
You celebrate the murder of ~3 million Poles, yet you profess to care about the killing of Palestinian children?

Stalin’s & Zhukov’s bottom-of-the-barrel brave Russian soldiers — those Russians that Stalin cared so much about that he let Zhukov shoot them in the back — had scarcely finished raping the last of 2 million German women before the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft (DEFA) was formed in Soviet East Germany because the “Soviets valued the [film] medium as a primary means of re-educating the German populace as it emerged from twelve years of Nazi rule.”

Wolfgang Staudte spent ten years producing anti-German propaganda film for DEFA, doing penance for his acting role in Jud Süß.

I just finished watching Staudte’s Rotation, produced in 1949. It’s basically a father-and-son tale: father resists Nazis, son [Helmut] gets involved with Hitler youth; father ends up in jail, son having ratted him out for printing subversive pamphlets (think of the father as an Ernst Zundel character).
Helmut becomes a soldier caught up in Russian siege of Berlin which he manages to survive with a fellow-in-arms, but the soldier-buddy doffs his uniform to save his hide, and urges Helmut to do the same, but Helmut, disillusioned, weeps.

Mother ends up dead, the result of heartless German soldiers ordering that a bridge be bombed, which will cause flooding of the shelters where women & children had fled for safety from Allied bombing & Russian tanks.
Next scene: Helmut returns to home & father, begs forgiveness which is, of course, granted.
All live happily ever after, except, of course, hundreds of thousands of Germans; occupied Poles and Russians and East Germans; 70,000 Frenchmen killed by Allies; and Sigmund Freud who died of cancer from smoking phallic symbols.

In 1950, DEFA released Der Rat der Götter ( The Council of the Gods),

“a story about the collaboration between international corporation [I G Farben and Standard Oil] and Nazi scientists, whose research contributed to the death of millions. . . . [It] depicts . . .the moral dilemmas and lessons of the war, as well as of Cold War propaganda. The chemist Dr. Hans Scholz lives through a tortuous political transformation and maturation process. Finally, he becomes wrapped up in his political neutrality and closes his eyes to the fact that poison is being produced in his factory. Standing before the judges at the Nuremberg trials he has to face the fact that he was partly responsible for the deaths of millions in the gas chambers of the concentration camps.” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042877/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

Several interesting things about Council of the Gods: first, Hitler is depicted as a useful tool of the elites and war profiteers rather as the One Person in the entire world and German population who caused everything;** and second, while heavy emphasis is placed on the complicity of Standard Oil with the Nazi war machine — all for profit, no mention is made of the fact that Standard Oil also worked for the Allies in developing and providing chemicals used to bomb Germany to rubble — saving only plants like the I G Farben works (and some Ford plants, iirc).

**On this score — that “it was all because of Hitler” — Prof. Vernon Bogdanor produced a series of videos that dumpster-dive into British politics leading to WWI. Bogdanor repeats like a mantra, “If WWI had not happened, then Hitler would not have come to power and there would have been no second world war.”The Council of the Gods reveals how ludicrous that argument is: it requires one to believe that men like the heads of I G Farben and Standard Oil, and their linkages to the respective government heads and powerful financiers, would have remained forever quiescent, ineffective and impotent sans Corporal Adolf Hitler. You da man, 88.

It's true that Lenin made anti-semitism a crime in the Soviet Union. Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents to succeed Lenin, and these included Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. As Slezkine says, in his excellent book, Jews occupied the top positions in the NKVD before World War II. Many of the Politburo members, outside Kaganovich, were also married to Jews or had Jewish relatives.

However, after World War II, Stalin purged most NKVD/KGB members who had Jewish connections. This was particularly true after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948. In addition, Stalin limited upper level Jewish positions in the Communist Party. He forced Kalinin, and Molatov to inform on their Jewish wives and Kaganovich to agree to his brother's execution. Stalin was getting ready for a purge of Jews, who were implicated by him in the "Doctors' Plot" It was only his death in 1953 that prevented a pogrom of massive proportions.

Stalin really trusted no one, particularly the Jews, of whom he once said "we need their brains"
He was a paranoid psychopath, but a genius politician and world class tactician. He was one of the ablest mass murderers in human history.

I do not know how many times I am going to encounter these myths. It never ends.

“It’s true that Lenin made anti-semitism a crime in the Soviet Union. Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents to succeed Lenin, and these included Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. As Slezkine says, in his excellent book, Jews occupied the top positions in the NKVD before World War II. Many of the Politburo members, outside Kaganovich, were also married to Jews or had Jewish relatives.”

This is false, and if you believe a man that uses the terms ‘Mercurian’ and other ridiculous terms, well then I guess it’s akin to believing the sky is red because we’re all red inside. Second, Jews did not occupy the ‘top positions’ in the NKVD. Even Wikipedia says as much, and official lists of the NKVD and the ethnicities of all of its members are listed. You never bothered to look and neither did Slezkine.

“However, after World War II, Stalin purged most NKVD/KGB members who had Jewish connections. This was particularly true after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948.” – Most sources say the purges occurred in the 1930′s, during the peak years of Repression, and besides, Stalin died in 1953. The country had to be rebuilt, and there’d be no time for said repressions.

“In addition, Stalin limited upper level Jewish positions in the Communist Party. He forced Kalinin, and Molatov to inform on their Jewish wives and Kaganovich to agree to his brother’s execution. Stalin was getting ready for a purge of Jews, who were implicated by him in the “Doctors’ Plot” It was only his death in 1953 that prevented a pogrom of massive proportions.” – The Doctor’s Plot is a myth, and many of them weren’t even Jewish to begin with.

“Stalin really trusted no one, particularly the Jews, of whom he once said “we need their brains”
He was a paranoid psychopath, but a genius politician and world class tactician. He was one of the ablest mass murderers in human history.” – He’s a psychopath yet a world class tactician? OK. Plenty of myths of Stalin abound, and it is amusing to see how many people believe them.

"Second, Jews did not occupy the ‘top positions’ in the NKVD. Even Wikipedia says as much, and official lists of the NKVD and the ethnicities of all of its members are listed. You never bothered to look and neither did Slezkine. " So, you are saying that Genrikh Yagoda , Peoples Commissar of Internal Affairs, Matvai Berman, Deputy Commissar of Internal Affairs (Gulag Head), Naftaly Frenkel, Special Commissar of Camps, Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, and Lazar Kogan didn't occupy top positions in the NKVD and the Gulag system? Do you get all your information from secondary sources like Wikipedia and not primary sources and documents?

"Most sources say the purges occurred in the 1930′s, during the peak years of Repression, and besides, Stalin died in 1953. The country had to be rebuilt, and there’d be no time for said repressions." Yes, most of the major purges happened in the 30s. but you are ill informed if you haven't heard of the "Leningrad Affair" and the executions of Aleksei Kuznetsov and Andrei Voznesensky, as well as the imprisonment, executions, and party expulsions of thousands of other Leningraders.

"The Doctor’s Plot is a myth, and many of them weren’t even Jewish to begin with." Of the nine doctors arrested for the "Doctors Plot" six were Jews (Jewish Virtual Library and Encyclopedia Britainnica)

shooter:
"Second, Jews did not occupy the ‘top positions’ in the NKVD. "

Even wikipedia?? Seriously???

Yes, the NKVD archives DO show Jews were largely overepresented in the top echelons up until the purges of 1937.

In the early secret police, the CHEKA, the Jews were even more overepresented.

Considering only the largest ethnic group, the Russians, and the Jews who in the mid to late 30s, made up about 2% of the Soviet population;
Russian historian Nikita V. Petrov, specialist on the Soviet security services, combed the internal NKVD data.
In the upper echelons of the NKVD, he found out that as of October 1936, Jews made up nearly 40% of the leading positions while Russians, who made up the vast majority of the population, made up 30%.

After purges, this changed and by Feb,1941, Russians made up nearly 65% and Jews circa 5.5%.

Re the Cheka, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport wrote:

Immediately after the Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins.
Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro wrote:

"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka, stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator."

Stalin was a clever chap. He knew that if he wanted to get any results from the Russians, the only way to get them going is to appeal to their national identity. Stalin knew that using himself as a motivating factor wouldn’t fly – the personality cult came later – after the war. He also knew that the Russians could find very little inspiration in communism too – so he resurrected all the historical national heroes like Kutuzov and Nevsky and Suvorov.

He was also aware how badly he screwed up by trusting Hitler, so at the beginning of Barbarossa, he locked himself in his dacha outside Moscow and spent the first 10 days in a drunken stupor and depression. When he saw members of the politburo approaching his dacha, he thought that they are coming to arrest him for treason, instead they were coming to ask him to pull himself together because the nation needed him.

In his first public appearance after the start of the war he addressed the Russians as: “Brothers and sisters” and the poor Russians thought – Holly cow we are even deeper in shit than we thought – he has never called us brothers and sisters before. Stalin did manage to unite the Russians in order to get the great victory, but he didn’t unite them using himself as a focal point – he used the appeal to their nationhood.

They even built a monument to this. It’s on Mamayev Kurgan and it’s called “Rodina mat zovyot” or “The motherland is calling”, and apparently it’s bigger than the statue of liberty. That’s the call that the Russians couldn’t ignore, not Stalin’s call or his personal appeal and charm. He didn’t ask them to do all the sacrifices for him, but for mother Russia. Maybe that’s why despite everything, they’ll continue to respect him.

Quite the contrast to Franklin Roosevelt who lied to the American people in order to involve them in a war that was no concern of theirs.

Say -- that seems to be a pattern with US prezes: lie to the American people; set up systems to tax them to pay for the war, either thru income tax or monetary inflation tax or both; wreck other people's countries, for the benefit of another entity.

And do not forget about the best ever military patriotic song composed few days after German invasion in June 1941 by Alexandrov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLi0Fxfqtdk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaq-bMoriaA With song like this the victory was the only option.

Stalin was a clever chap. He knew that if he wanted to get any results from the Russians, the only way to get them going is to appeal to their national identity. Stalin knew that using himself as a motivating factor wouldn’t fly – the personality cult came later – after the war. He also knew that the Russians could find very little inspiration in communism too – so he resurrected all the historical national heroes like Kutuzov and Nevsky and Suvorov.

He was also aware how badly he screwed up by trusting Hitler, so at the beginning of Barbarossa, he locked himself in his dacha outside Moscow and spent the first 10 days in a drunken stupor and depression. When he saw members of the politburo approaching his dacha, he thought that they are coming to arrest him for treason, instead they were coming to ask him to pull himself together because the nation needed him.

In his first public appearance after the start of the war he addressed the Russians as: “Brothers and sisters” and the poor Russians thought - Holly cow we are even deeper in shit than we thought - he has never called us brothers and sisters before. Stalin did manage to unite the Russians in order to get the great victory, but he didn’t unite them using himself as a focal point – he used the appeal to their nationhood.

They even built a monument to this. It’s on Mamayev Kurgan and it’s called “Rodina mat zovyot” or “The motherland is calling”, and apparently it’s bigger than the statue of liberty. That’s the call that the Russians couldn’t ignore, not Stalin’s call or his personal appeal and charm. He didn’t ask them to do all the sacrifices for him, but for mother Russia. Maybe that’s why despite everything, they’ll continue to respect him.

Quite the contrast to Franklin Roosevelt who lied to the American people in order to involve them in a war that was no concern of theirs.

Say — that seems to be a pattern with US prezes: lie to the American people; set up systems to tax them to pay for the war, either thru income tax or monetary inflation tax or both; wreck other people’s countries, for the benefit of another entity.

I do not know how many times I am going to encounter these myths. It never ends.

"It’s true that Lenin made anti-semitism a crime in the Soviet Union. Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents to succeed Lenin, and these included Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. As Slezkine says, in his excellent book, Jews occupied the top positions in the NKVD before World War II. Many of the Politburo members, outside Kaganovich, were also married to Jews or had Jewish relatives."

This is false, and if you believe a man that uses the terms 'Mercurian' and other ridiculous terms, well then I guess it's akin to believing the sky is red because we're all red inside. Second, Jews did not occupy the 'top positions' in the NKVD. Even Wikipedia says as much, and official lists of the NKVD and the ethnicities of all of its members are listed. You never bothered to look and neither did Slezkine.

"However, after World War II, Stalin purged most NKVD/KGB members who had Jewish connections. This was particularly true after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948." - Most sources say the purges occurred in the 1930's, during the peak years of Repression, and besides, Stalin died in 1953. The country had to be rebuilt, and there'd be no time for said repressions.

"In addition, Stalin limited upper level Jewish positions in the Communist Party. He forced Kalinin, and Molatov to inform on their Jewish wives and Kaganovich to agree to his brother’s execution. Stalin was getting ready for a purge of Jews, who were implicated by him in the “Doctors’ Plot” It was only his death in 1953 that prevented a pogrom of massive proportions." - The Doctor's Plot is a myth, and many of them weren't even Jewish to begin with.

http://www.apn.ru/publications/article19258.htm

"Stalin really trusted no one, particularly the Jews, of whom he once said “we need their brains”
He was a paranoid psychopath, but a genius politician and world class tactician. He was one of the ablest mass murderers in human history." - He's a psychopath yet a world class tactician? OK. Plenty of myths of Stalin abound, and it is amusing to see how many people believe them.

I also happened to Google the quote. Nothing of the sort.

“Second, Jews did not occupy the ‘top positions’ in the NKVD. Even Wikipedia says as much, and official lists of the NKVD and the ethnicities of all of its members are listed. You never bothered to look and neither did Slezkine. ” So, you are saying that Genrikh Yagoda , Peoples Commissar of Internal Affairs, Matvai Berman, Deputy Commissar of Internal Affairs (Gulag Head), Naftaly Frenkel, Special Commissar of Camps, Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, and Lazar Kogan didn’t occupy top positions in the NKVD and the Gulag system? Do you get all your information from secondary sources like Wikipedia and not primary sources and documents?

“Most sources say the purges occurred in the 1930′s, during the peak years of Repression, and besides, Stalin died in 1953. The country had to be rebuilt, and there’d be no time for said repressions.” Yes, most of the major purges happened in the 30s. but you are ill informed if you haven’t heard of the “Leningrad Affair” and the executions of Aleksei Kuznetsov and Andrei Voznesensky, as well as the imprisonment, executions, and party expulsions of thousands of other Leningraders.

“The Doctor’s Plot is a myth, and many of them weren’t even Jewish to begin with.” Of the nine doctors arrested for the “Doctors Plot” six were Jews (Jewish Virtual Library and Encyclopedia Britainnica)

Shooter, I suggest you read Louis Rapoport’s “Stalin’s War Against the Jews” for in depth coverage of “the myth” of the “Doctors Plot” As far as Stalin being both a psychopath and political genius, if you knew anything about psychology, you would realize that this is entirely possible. Finally, do you honestly believe that all quotations are listed in Google????

Obviously, I don’t deny the famine and mass executions were completely unnecessary

That presumes that Holodomor was artificially created. It wasn't

As for the the "mass executions" - care to elaborate here? There was such a thing like "execution/death penalty" and some crimes were punishable with said execution in the USSR. Are you saying they were not really a crimes? Or that you are against the death penalty?

“That presumes that Holodomor was artificially created. It wasn’t”

This is stupid beyond words. The evidence is everywhere that Stalin created the Holomodor. Grain was seized from the farmers and they were not allowed to keep even enough to feed themselves. The party combed Ukraine and executed anyone trying to withhold grain.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin described them ( kulaks ) as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine."

That description could be applied to certain elements of today's society. In Stalin's time the Kulaks and other related vermin were sent to Gulags. This practice, if applied to those modern equivalents of Kulaks, could greatly improve the situation of the world.

Geem I didn’t know that there’s been written somewhere that “we must eliminate only most intelligent and productive people”. In what archives did you unearthed that knowledge, AK? I want to expand my horizons.

That's how it worked out. For example - the repression of the kulaks. Kulaks were the hardest working and most enterprising of the peasants, and were able to take advantage of conditions due to Stolypin's reforms and later NEP to live well. For example, in a case I'm personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn't drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation - he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win - the hired help had been incomeless). Under Stalin, he was labeled a kulak, and exploiter. He was liquidated, everything was taken from his family, who were exiled. Who was left in the village? The village drunks were untouched, as were others who were simpler, or less hardworking, and thus poorer.

Soviet policies were a sort of reverse natural selection - the survival of the least fit.

This process also occurred in the cities, where Soviets liquidated a lot of engineers and others who had been successful under the old regime. And of course the military.

“For example, in a case I’m personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn’t drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation – he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win – the hired help had been income less).”

Are you aware that very often these enterprising kulaks “paid” the labor with alcohol rather than money? A situation somewhat similar to this existed in mining communities in the USA up to the late 1960′s as the owners of mines paid labor in wooden “dollars” that were redeemable only at their banks and company stores. Much worse, when the mine folded up and the company left town, the wooden “dollars” were worthless. Both systems are exploitative.

This is stupid beyond words. The evidence is everywhere that Stalin created the Holomodor. Grain was seized from the farmers and they were not allowed to keep even enough to feed themselves. The party combed Ukraine and executed anyone trying to withhold grain.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin described them ( kulaks ) as “bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine.”

That description could be applied to certain elements of today’s society. In Stalin’s time the Kulaks and other related vermin were sent to Gulags. This practice, if applied to those modern equivalents of Kulaks, could greatly improve the situation of the world.

Stalin was a clever chap. He knew that if he wanted to get any results from the Russians, the only way to get them going is to appeal to their national identity. Stalin knew that using himself as a motivating factor wouldn’t fly – the personality cult came later – after the war. He also knew that the Russians could find very little inspiration in communism too – so he resurrected all the historical national heroes like Kutuzov and Nevsky and Suvorov.

He was also aware how badly he screwed up by trusting Hitler, so at the beginning of Barbarossa, he locked himself in his dacha outside Moscow and spent the first 10 days in a drunken stupor and depression. When he saw members of the politburo approaching his dacha, he thought that they are coming to arrest him for treason, instead they were coming to ask him to pull himself together because the nation needed him.

In his first public appearance after the start of the war he addressed the Russians as: “Brothers and sisters” and the poor Russians thought - Holly cow we are even deeper in shit than we thought - he has never called us brothers and sisters before. Stalin did manage to unite the Russians in order to get the great victory, but he didn’t unite them using himself as a focal point – he used the appeal to their nationhood.

They even built a monument to this. It’s on Mamayev Kurgan and it’s called “Rodina mat zovyot” or “The motherland is calling”, and apparently it’s bigger than the statue of liberty. That’s the call that the Russians couldn’t ignore, not Stalin’s call or his personal appeal and charm. He didn’t ask them to do all the sacrifices for him, but for mother Russia. Maybe that’s why despite everything, they’ll continue to respect him.

"For example, in a case I’m personally familiar with, a kulak worked harder than his neighbors and was clever and frugal (didn’t drink) enough to use his extra money to invest in a windmill, the only one in the village. He charged his neighbors for its use (a win-win situation – he got paid, and they did not have to go to a neighboring village), and with the additional capital was able to buy more land, and to hire farmhands (also win-win – the hired help had been income less)."

Are you aware that very often these enterprising kulaks "paid" the labor with alcohol rather than money? A situation somewhat similar to this existed in mining communities in the USA up to the late 1960's as the owners of mines paid labor in wooden "dollars" that were redeemable only at their banks and company stores. Much worse, when the mine folded up and the company left town, the wooden "dollars" were worthless. Both systems are exploitative.

I am the Granddaughter of a kulak as well as that of a laborer.

Many of the company tokens were made of cheap metal. The most common name was “clacker.”

One friend would tell another, ” You need to leave that woman alone, she’s clacker crazy.”

They didn’t accumulate clacker, they spent all that they earned, so I doubt that any wages were lost by that method. It is more likely that the mine just closed and did not pay wages owed.

Interestingly, the commissaries almost always carried quality goods. But again they should have done so, considering the high prices that they set in a retail monopoly.

I am the Granddaughter of a kulak as well as that of a laborer.

I am one generation removed from people who were paid in clacker and were share-croppers when not in the mines.

Stalin was a clever chap. He knew that if he wanted to get any results from the Russians, the only way to get them going is to appeal to their national identity. Stalin knew that using himself as a motivating factor wouldn’t fly – the personality cult came later – after the war. He also knew that the Russians could find very little inspiration in communism too – so he resurrected all the historical national heroes like Kutuzov and Nevsky and Suvorov.

He was also aware how badly he screwed up by trusting Hitler, so at the beginning of Barbarossa, he locked himself in his dacha outside Moscow and spent the first 10 days in a drunken stupor and depression. When he saw members of the politburo approaching his dacha, he thought that they are coming to arrest him for treason, instead they were coming to ask him to pull himself together because the nation needed him.

In his first public appearance after the start of the war he addressed the Russians as: “Brothers and sisters” and the poor Russians thought - Holly cow we are even deeper in shit than we thought - he has never called us brothers and sisters before. Stalin did manage to unite the Russians in order to get the great victory, but he didn’t unite them using himself as a focal point – he used the appeal to their nationhood.

They even built a monument to this. It’s on Mamayev Kurgan and it’s called “Rodina mat zovyot” or “The motherland is calling”, and apparently it’s bigger than the statue of liberty. That’s the call that the Russians couldn’t ignore, not Stalin’s call or his personal appeal and charm. He didn’t ask them to do all the sacrifices for him, but for mother Russia. Maybe that’s why despite everything, they’ll continue to respect him.

cyrano: “He was also aware how badly he screwed up by trusting Hitler”

What an extraordinarily stupid comment! Right out of the Stalinist playbook!

Your beloved Stalin trusted nobody, much less Hitler, a foreigner and anti-Communist whom he had never met with.

You are right. I should have phrased that better. Stalin felt disappointed that Hitler outmaneuvered him at the start of Barbarossa when he wasn’t ready. But get this, he forced that failure to commit a suicide and then he denied him a proper burial place so his degenerate admirers (one of whom seems to be you) could never visit his grave and pay respect to that dog.

I do not know how many times I am going to encounter these myths. It never ends.

"It’s true that Lenin made anti-semitism a crime in the Soviet Union. Stalin outmaneuvered his opponents to succeed Lenin, and these included Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. As Slezkine says, in his excellent book, Jews occupied the top positions in the NKVD before World War II. Many of the Politburo members, outside Kaganovich, were also married to Jews or had Jewish relatives."

This is false, and if you believe a man that uses the terms 'Mercurian' and other ridiculous terms, well then I guess it's akin to believing the sky is red because we're all red inside. Second, Jews did not occupy the 'top positions' in the NKVD. Even Wikipedia says as much, and official lists of the NKVD and the ethnicities of all of its members are listed. You never bothered to look and neither did Slezkine.

"However, after World War II, Stalin purged most NKVD/KGB members who had Jewish connections. This was particularly true after the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948." - Most sources say the purges occurred in the 1930's, during the peak years of Repression, and besides, Stalin died in 1953. The country had to be rebuilt, and there'd be no time for said repressions.

"In addition, Stalin limited upper level Jewish positions in the Communist Party. He forced Kalinin, and Molatov to inform on their Jewish wives and Kaganovich to agree to his brother’s execution. Stalin was getting ready for a purge of Jews, who were implicated by him in the “Doctors’ Plot” It was only his death in 1953 that prevented a pogrom of massive proportions." - The Doctor's Plot is a myth, and many of them weren't even Jewish to begin with.

http://www.apn.ru/publications/article19258.htm

"Stalin really trusted no one, particularly the Jews, of whom he once said “we need their brains”
He was a paranoid psychopath, but a genius politician and world class tactician. He was one of the ablest mass murderers in human history." - He's a psychopath yet a world class tactician? OK. Plenty of myths of Stalin abound, and it is amusing to see how many people believe them.

I also happened to Google the quote. Nothing of the sort.

shooter:
“Second, Jews did not occupy the ‘top positions’ in the NKVD. ”

Even wikipedia?? Seriously???

Yes, the NKVD archives DO show Jews were largely overepresented in the top echelons up until the purges of 1937.

In the early secret police, the CHEKA, the Jews were even more overepresented.

Considering only the largest ethnic group, the Russians, and the Jews who in the mid to late 30s, made up about 2% of the Soviet population;Russian historian Nikita V. Petrov, specialist on the Soviet security services, combed the internal NKVD data.
In the upper echelons of the NKVD, he found out that as of October 1936, Jews made up nearly 40% of the leading positions while Russians, who made up the vast majority of the population, made up 30%.

After purges, this changed and by Feb,1941, Russians made up nearly 65% and Jews circa 5.5%.

Re the Cheka, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport wrote:

Immediately after the Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin’s first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins.
Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists’ vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution — partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.

Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro wrote:

“Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka, stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator.”

Given that the holocau$t is brought up, time & again, in various threads here, by brainwashed fools & propagandists, I see nothing wrong with BobbyBeGood trying to get people to wake up.

Stupid holocau$t denial?? Have you ever read even one good book from the other side of the debate?
Why, if the holohoax is so well documented- it is NOT – does Germany and so many other countries need the police and the ‘justice’ system to shut down debate?

The reason is bc the official story does not have a leg to stand on, thats is why.

I assume that you r either a German or of German origin… you represent all that is wrong with Germany and German people these days.
Grow a pair and study what the other side, a heavily persecuted one, which has to operate underground, has to say on the matter. Do so with an open mind and you will be in for quite a surprise… as I was.

Start with ‘The Rudolf Report—Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the “Gas Chambers” of Auschwitz’, a detailed study by a modern day German hero, put in prison for ‘thought crimes’. That is truly disgusting.
” Appendix describes Rudolf’s unique persecution—this brilliant scientist was so feared by the mainstream holocaust establishment that they banned him from writing about or researching the subject as terms of his release from prison!

“For me, the significance of receiving your report rests on the fact that it substantially contributes to our stock of knowledge. With many of my collegues active in the field of contemporary history, I am overjoyed and thankful for you having initiated this research activity. Of course, I am even more delighted regarding the results of your accurate scientific investigation.” —Prof. Dr. Werner Georg Haverbeck, Historian, January 31, 1992

“I calmly read your report! It gives me hope to realize that a representative of the younger generation courageously sets out, with scientific thoroughness, noticeable great expertise, and corresponding investigative curiosity, to get to the bottom of a controversial question that is of worldwide significance! The result is clear and unequivocal! True facts cannot be suppressed forever! I wish that your work will make the breakthrough!” —Prof. Emil Schlee, Historian, April 1, 1992

ps: notice that there is no problem, as evidenced by the so many of the comments, to try to exonerate Stalin and his regime whose crimes are, in fact, much better documented than a lot of the nonsense atributted to Hitler and his regime.

Stalin always had people to defend him, in Russia as well as in the West( generally leftist/lib circles), including in Academia.

Rudolf report was already discussed and debunked in one of threads at unz.com (can't remember where exactly, though). The fact that denialist repeat those old lies, ignoring the fact that they were already destroyed, tells me a lot about denialists.

Given that the holocau$t is brought up, time & again, in various threads here, by brainwashed fools & propagandists, I see nothing wrong with BobbyBeGood trying to get people to wake up.

Stupid holocau$t denial?? Have you ever read even one good book from the other side of the debate?
Why, if the holohoax is so well documented- it is NOT - does Germany and so many other countries need the police and the 'justice' system to shut down debate?

The reason is bc the official story does not have a leg to stand on, thats is why.

I assume that you r either a German or of German origin... you represent all that is wrong with Germany and German people these days.
Grow a pair and study what the other side, a heavily persecuted one, which has to operate underground, has to say on the matter. Do so with an open mind and you will be in for quite a surprise... as I was.

Start with 'The Rudolf Report—Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the “Gas Chambers” of Auschwitz', a detailed study by a modern day German hero, put in prison for 'thought crimes'. That is truly disgusting.
" Appendix describes Rudolf’s unique persecution—this brilliant scientist was so feared by the mainstream holocaust establishment that they banned him from writing about or researching the subject as terms of his release from prison!

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=2

"For me, the significance of receiving your report rests on the fact that it substantially contributes to our stock of knowledge. With many of my collegues active in the field of contemporary history, I am overjoyed and thankful for you having initiated this research activity. Of course, I am even more delighted regarding the results of your accurate scientific investigation." —Prof. Dr. Werner Georg Haverbeck, Historian, January 31, 1992

"I calmly read your report! It gives me hope to realize that a representative of the younger generation courageously sets out, with scientific thoroughness, noticeable great expertise, and corresponding investigative curiosity, to get to the bottom of a controversial question that is of worldwide significance! The result is clear and unequivocal! True facts cannot be suppressed forever! I wish that your work will make the breakthrough!" —Prof. Emil Schlee, Historian, April 1, 1992

ps: notice that there is no problem, as evidenced by the so many of the comments, to try to exonerate Stalin and his regime whose crimes are, in fact, much better documented than a lot of the nonsense atributted to Hitler and his regime.

Stalin always had people to defend him, in Russia as well as in the West( generally leftist/lib circles), including in Academia.

This is likely bc he won the war. Woe to the vanquished.

{Given that the holocau$t is brought up, time & again, in various threads here, by brainwashed fools & propagandists, }

Given that Holocaust denial is brought up, time & again, in various threads here, by neo-Nazi revisionist fools and propagandist mongrel.POS™ and neo-Nazi revisionist Schweinhunds.

{the nonsense atributted to Hitler}
The actual genocidal war crimes attributed to Nazi scum and their cowardly leader.

cyrano: "He was also aware how badly he screwed up by trusting Hitler"

What an extraordinarily stupid comment! Right out of the Stalinist playbook!

Your beloved Stalin trusted nobody, much less Hitler, a foreigner and anti-Communist whom he had never met with.

He was also aware how badly he screwed up by trusting Hitler

You are right. I should have phrased that better. Stalin felt disappointed that Hitler outmaneuvered him at the start of Barbarossa when he wasn’t ready. But get this, he forced that failure to commit a suicide and then he denied him a proper burial place so his degenerate admirers (one of whom seems to be you) could never visit his grave and pay respect to that dog.

In much of central and eastern Ukraine all of the peasant land became privately owned.

When - during the Hetmanate? Petyura? Whites?

Again - have you read the text of the "Decree on the Land"? The private ownership of the land in USSR has been eliminated. It also prohibited the use of hired labor. If that fellow somehow added more land to his personal nadel during the NEP he was violatin the law. If he was still using batrak labor - he was violating the law. His legislative nihilism is not an excuse.

I don’t know the details and the timeline. I know he and his family worked hard, saved what they made from the surplus, and invested their savings in a windmill and additional land (not sure which order) that in turn generated more capital. More land meant they could hire farmhands to work the land. No theft, exploitation (in a normal, not Marxist sense), extortion etc. involved. Just hard work, patience, and some brains.

Beating up money from your fellow villagers, coming up with a plan to, against all odds, get that surplus in the first place AND continue to flaunt the existing legislation even during the Soviet rule - sure lot of work, patience and some cohones. Not brains though - he was a fool if he thought that in the Land of Soviets he would be allowed to continue his basically capitalist enterprise forever without consequences.

And this kind of thinking is what derailed the lands of the Russian Empire in the 20th century.

No - a dipshit on the throne and nearly totally worthless ruling class first derailed, and then buried the Russian Empire, including a lot of people responsible.

I don’t know the laborers’ back stories. Perhaps they lost their land due to some personal failures, or parental failures.

Tsk - what a loss! Don't like them, people of lover classes, do you, AP? They simply could not. The mir was in charge of allocating the communal land. It should have provided them with the land. And the lack of personal land was not a bug, but a feature.

The guy who probably has no actual connection to villages thinks what he read in his Sovok propaganda publiciations is reality.

I suggest you should assume less and stop smoking strawmen.

In the same way that I like paying money for groceries from a store near my house and am happy I don’t have to drive 20 minutes to a grocery store. I am not “exploited” by the guy charging me for groceries and don’t expect to get them for free.

The thing here though - this analogy don't work for the village as it was at that time.

You don’t believe that intelligence has a genetic component and that successful people, in general, tend to be smarter than less successful ones?

Indeed, I do. Less scrupulous - sure. Not smarter.

Kulaks were, in general, smarter/harder working/more future-oriented than average peasants. Wiping them out as a class was a process of reverse Darwinism in the countryside. This process also occurred throughout society. Of course, some smart people survived, and new ones were born. But Bolshevism took a large toll on the peoples of the Russian Empire.

What a charming view - and in total agreement with (Neo)Nazi propaganda to boot!

No, the Soviet Power only stepped up against the excesses of unchecked capitalist social Darwinism, when a tiny group a self-proclaimed betters instead of working for the common good would rather see their fellow villagers poor and starving, and becoming employed by their former fellow peasant. And because said fine fellow would think first of all about his own enrichment there is absolutely no chance that he'd pay absolutely fair wage, because thus he won't be able to accumulate surplus income for himself.

Your sneering at generalities about hard work, patience and future orientation (leading to saving) being rewarded is unintelligent. It is comparable in stupidity to denying that a school of 500 pupils in which the average IQ was 120 and sd 17 would produce more gifted scientists than one in which the average was 100 and sd 15. Generalisations tend to be true as a matter of common sense assessment of probabilities.

As to the Holomodor, what was going on simultaneously in Belarus, Moldavia, Russia (around Moscow) etc. ? Was the peasantry so different? Were they treated differently? If so, how, and why?